Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
thiextar

Transcript of the recent balance stream?

101 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[-AP-]
Players
744 posts
2,912 battles

There was a Q&A stream about game balance a few days ago, and normally you see a write-up or a transcript like a day after these Q&A streams, but i havent found one for this yet, was just wondering if anyone has seen one?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITR]
Beta Tester, Players
1,334 posts
4,204 battles
38 minutes ago, thiextar said:

There was a Q&A stream about game balance a few days ago, and normally you see a write-up or a transcript like a day after these Q&A streams, but i havent found one for this yet, was just wondering if anyone has seen one?

I have watched 5 minutes of that stream and had to turn it off in disgust.
That Nelson guy (head of the balance?) sounded like he had no idea what a balance even is.

When asked what are they gonna do about the overall effectivity of the CV's he hinted that they are actually pretty lost, because if they make the CV's stronger against AA, majority of players will be frustrated.
They simply don't know what to do with the rework.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

  • Cool 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIRKO]
Players
405 posts
4,040 battles

Listening to that Nelson guy made my ears bleed, he just can't be bothered to even speak english properly. As for balancing the current state of the game, he didn't say much.

 

What is worse and most important, he really gave the impression of being unconfident and unsure about the direction the game is going right now. Nelson clearly lacks belief in his work and seemed pretty miserable.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,473 posts
14,599 battles
24 minutes ago, Blixies said:


That Nelson guy (head of the balance?) sounded like he had no idea what a balance even is.
 

He stated that he rarely plays on the live server, and mostly 'plays' WoWs in Excel.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
466 posts
1,698 battles
28 minutes ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

He stated that he rarely plays on the live server, and mostly 'plays' WoWs in Excel.

I did find this... odd. I really want to know how devs keep their fingers on the pulse of how the meta is developing on live, if they mainly play on test servers :cap_tea:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

"Welcome captains, we are aware of your feedback but need more data. Please go to the forums if you are not having fun. See you on the high seas!"

 

That close enough? :Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
588 posts
4,770 battles
32 minutes ago, 10ThousandThings said:

I did find this... odd. I really want to know how devs keep their fingers on the pulse of how the meta is developing on live, if they mainly play on test servers :cap_tea:

Put simply, they don't.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,225 battles
34 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

"Welcome captains, we are aware of your feedback but need more data. Please go to the forums if you are not having fun. See you on the high seas!"

 

That close enough? :Smile_trollface:

 

Right on the money - and you didnt even watch the stream - magic? :cap_hmm:

 

37 minutes ago, 10ThousandThings said:

I did find this... odd. I really want to know how devs keep their fingers on the pulse of how the meta is developing on live, if they mainly play on test servers :cap_tea:

 

They dont. Thats why we all have to suffer.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,345 posts
11,248 battles

He said that IJN torps still are more comfortable to use (in the context of the nerfs to aiming, mind you) than USN. In the same stream MrConway was playing some of both... IDK, at least to me it looks like the USN attack runs were started later, had more room for adjustment and resulted in better spreads. Sure, IJN torps have better speed and are, in theory, capable of long-range attacks but as far as being convenient goes... it really didn't look all that well... Idk, maybe MrConway just has that "touch" for USN torps specifically :Smile-_tongue:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[O-P-C]
Players
402 posts
8,740 battles

aaand nobody is wanting another cv rework, everyones happy and silent now   :Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TEA]
Players
953 posts
4,228 battles

Watching Sir_Nelson in the stream, he seemed really uncomfortable and somewhat overwhelmed with the problems they are facing. There needs to be more interaction between the gaming community and the dev team whose changes affect us in real time. Mediation through managers like @MrConway and @Crysantos is simply not enough, and I think I speak for everyone here when I say that WG are completely out-of-touch with their audience. More needs to be done, accountability should be its number 1 priority.

 

If WG want to make changes to the game fine its their game, but the whole "GCgate" fiasco is completely unacceptable. You cannot under any circumstances, change sh!t up on things people have paid for only after accumulating enough capital from selling it in its alpha state.

 

I for one am never paying money for any ship ever again, infact I am no longer buying any premium account time in the current meta of WG vs. Community attitude I am too disgusted to hand over another ruble to their coffers. From now on I will accumulate all my free stuff and freemium ships and pay for nothing.

 

What angers me the most is that, we as the community have not even been approached by WG about any of the changes they are planning to make / or have made, we are not even on their radar. So why should they be on mine????:cap_money:

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 14
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

Using the live server full of paying customers is just appalling practice, especially when it has dramatically changed how most games are played these days.

 

WG do what they want to do and ignore community feedback or stall/confuse people with bad Q&As. 

 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
744 posts
2,912 battles
7 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

Using the live server full of paying customers is just appalling practice, especially when it has dramatically changed how most games are played these days.

 

WG do what they want to do and ignore community feedback or stall/confuse people with bad Q&As. 

 

 

Yup, i have been hiding in ranked mostly recently, but i decided to play a random battle with a low tier friend, and having spent most of my time in ranked, i forgot about the whole rework and picked a destroyer....

 

I was a handicapped cruiser that entire battle, and regretted every decision of my life leading up to it.

 

Decided to hide out in ranked again after that battle. Randoms are just completely unplayable at the moment, so after those 11 days of ranked left, i guess i will have to find a new game to play until wargaming fix this crap, if im still interested when they do...

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITR]
Beta Tester, Players
1,334 posts
4,204 battles
14 hours ago, B051LjKo said:

My Tier VIII CV is not fun to play in Tier X battle

 - My spreadsheet states that you are really enjoying the game

My favourite :D

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
1,804 posts
9,595 battles
14 hours ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

If WG want to make changes to the game fine its their game, but the whole "GCgate" fiasco is completely unacceptable. You cannot under any circumstances, change sh!t up on things people have paid for only after accumulating enough capital from selling it in its alpha state. 

Yea this is a hard one for me.

 

I am absolutely not against nerfing premiums, on the contrary, there's a lot of them I'd rather see changed.

 

But seeing how they used the idea of "overpowered ships that can't be nerfed and can't be bought anymore" to lure people into buying mystery crates first, is deeply immoral. I've seen people posting on reddit claiming they spend about €1000 to get their boat (missouri most of the time), and that's only the ones willing to post that kind of tihs. Imagine doing that and some time later seeing your ship nerfed and sold again :D

  • Cool 4
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-CC-]
Players
198 posts
12,287 battles
17 hours ago, Blixies said:

When asked what are they gonna do about the overall effectivity of the CV's he hinted that they are actually pretty lost, because if they make the CV's stronger against AA, majority of players will be frustrated.
They simply don't know what to do with the rework.

This forum needs a "depressed" reaction. If this is true, then the carrier rework is an absolute failure. Instead of making CVs more popular, they will only be played by an even smaller minority of unicums and masochists. Instead of reducing the skill gap, they will make it wider than ever. And instead of including CVs in all game modes, they will be discriminated against even more, starting from tier 7 operations. And does anyone seriously believe that the removed carriers are ever going to return at this rate?

 

They should just finish what they started, cancel the release of British CVs and remove what little is left of the carriers in this game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Staff
2,292 posts
11,885 battles
15 hours ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

Watching Sir_Nelson in the stream, he seemed really uncomfortable and somewhat overwhelmed with the problems they are facing. There needs to be more interaction between the gaming community and the dev team whose changes affect us in real time. Mediation through managers like @MrConway and @Crysantos is simply not enough, and I think I speak for everyone here when I say that WG are completely out-of-touch with their audience. More needs to be done, accountability should be its number 1 priority.

 

If WG want to make changes to the game fine its their game, but the whole "GCgate" fiasco is completely unacceptable. You cannot under any circumstances, change sh!t up on things people have paid for only after accumulating enough capital from selling it in its alpha state.

 

I for one am never paying money for any ship ever again, infact I am no longer buying any premium account time in the current meta of WG vs. Community attitude I am too disgusted to hand over another ruble to their coffers. From now on I will accumulate all my free stuff and freemium ships and pay for nothing.

 

What angers me the most is that, we as the community have not even been approached by WG about any of the changes they are planning to make / or have made, we are not even on their radar. So why should they be on mine????:cap_money:

Hi there,

 

We're always open to feedback and are looking for solutions how to improve our communication and interaction with all of you, but I think there are several misconceptions here that I want to clarify. I understand that with the amount and scope of changes we're introducing right now or are planning to introduce that it's tempting to generalize and criticize everything as a whole, but it's simply not true.

 

Let me start off with being completely out of touch with the community - just because you don't agree with changes we're introducing on a personal level, doesn't mean that we don't read it or take it into consideration when making such decisions. I would understand that point of view if we'd just release patches without any prior testing and feedback collection, or no efforts to address issues voiced by the community. But we do exactly that - we try to involve you as much as we can and we give you information at the earliest possible stage for us - when such things enter testing or even talk about potential changes in streams or videos like "waterline". We introduced a development blog that gives you the opportunity to read and comment on planned changes, we introduced a global streaming channel where you get have a look behind the scenes, ask questions directly to devs - and yes there's still a lot of room for improvement, but it shows our attitude and effort behind this. When we invite developers on stream, we try to get you the person working on this and who is able to give you the best insights - sometimes there might be a slight language barrier but it's authentic and these are actual developers, not trained actors - they show up because they want to answer questions and help you understand how and why we do things.

 

We're also way faster with reacting to issues after we reorganized our team structure in early 2018 - take a look at the CV rework. We deployed two immediate hotfixes after launch to address issues directly in the game (which are bound to appear with a gameplay rework of this scope), we also addressed the issues brought up by community in forums and our devblog, as example here within a week after the update or with the gun bloom fix, trying to give you an insight in what we plan to do next and how we intend it to work.

 

Look at the other changes we're working on - we rebalanced a boatload of ships over the past months, based on stats and your feedback, we're trying to help the DDs with the fix to full AP pens from BBs, now with adjusting radar. All of these things we announce, open it for discussion and our devs read your feedback that we collect every day here and other community channels. The same applies to the change we're currently testing for Giulio Cesare - we highlight that this is a test and we want to hear your opinions about this - also please be honest here, with GC we picked a ship that was highlighted here, on this forum by this community (for example in the Tier V ranked sprint as one of the major pain points) and by CCs, too. We're trying to find the best possible solution and this is still not final - please be assured that we don't take such decisions lightly or blindfolded.

 

It's sad for me to hear that you feel like you're not being heard or on our radar because we invest a lot of time and effort to ensure exactly that. I'd love to improve this where possible, please let me know what you'd suggest or would like to see us do in the future.

 

19 hours ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

He stated that he rarely plays on the live server, and mostly 'plays' WoWs in Excel.

This was taken a bit out of context, in his daily work he is mostly using other tools, like a seperate server to test things and obviously has to play with values in programs, that's his core job. His profile is open and visible here: https://worldofwarships.ru/ru/community/accounts/971-sir_nelson/!/pvp/overview/ - I already played against him and he is a good player. I understand that you might not agree with all of our balancing decisions but please keep in mind that our devs spend a lot of time playing the game and working on the game, they are just as passionate as you about WoWs.


Greetings, Crysantos

  • Cool 9
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITR]
Beta Tester, Players
1,334 posts
4,204 battles
25 minutes ago, Crysantos said:

Let me start off with being completely out of touch with the community - just because you don't agree with changes we're introducing on a personal level, doesn't mean that we don't read it or take it into consideration when making such decisions. I would understand that point of view if we'd just release patches without any prior testing and feedback collection, or no efforts to address issues voiced by the community.

You would, would you?

So you consider your last three patches (including hotfixes) as well tested and based on the feed back on issues voiced by the community?

I am sorry, but that is not at all what I see daily on this very forum.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Staff
2,292 posts
11,885 battles
2 minutes ago, Blixies said:

You would, would you?

So you consider your last three patches (including hotfixes) as well tested and based on the feed back on issues voiced by the community?

I am sorry, but that is not at all what I see daily on this very forum.

We've been very candid about the fact that the CV rework needs to be tested in a live environment because the player behavior on the PTS is different than on the live server - I wish we had a magical solution for this to be perfect from the get go, but it's not that easy. But we're doing our best. I'm not saying each patch is based on issues voiced by the community, I'm saying your feedback is considered in general for our development. Our developers have a vision for the game and incorporate feedback where possible, we try to fix issues / balancing problems perceived by the community where we can. Both early feedback & live server date after the update played a role for the hotfixes and we'll keep working on balancing. We have to be realistic here - tuning and tweaking this rework is going to take some time and your feedback for this is invaluable.

 

Greetings, Crysantos

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TEA]
Players
953 posts
4,228 battles
32 minutes ago, Crysantos said:

We've been very candid about the fact that the CV rework needs to be tested in a live environment because the player behavior on the PTS is different than on the live server - I wish we had a magical solution for this to be perfect from the get go, but it's not that easy. But we're doing our best. I'm not saying each patch is based on issues voiced by the community, I'm saying your feedback is considered in general for our development. Our developers have a vision for the game and incorporate feedback where possible, we try to fix issues / balancing problems perceived by the community where we can. Both early feedback & live server date after the update played a role for the hotfixes and we'll keep working on balancing. We have to be realistic here - tuning and tweaking this rework is going to take some time and your feedback for this is invaluable.

 

Greetings, Crysantos

Ok let me ask you chris since I put the same question to @MrConway but he just locked the thread and gave a vague answer...

 

Looking at the GC nerf being tested with it being uptiered to tier 6.

 

Fine you wanna balance the game, its op etc. At the end of the day we cannot stop you editing your own game.

 

But the slap in the face here is that for those not happy with the nerf if implemented is that there is no way of getting their money back.

 

You have sold a ship for cash and then pushed sales of it through the distribution of santa boxes with the promise of receiving the GC in its current tier 5 format. At no point was there any mention of a possible nerf incoming yet here we are.

 

As one of those who have paid money for a ship in its alpha state, if said ship is changed. An offer of a cash refund is mandatory!

 

Doubloons just wont cut it, since via doubloons you are still keeping peoples money in your coffers and not loosing any capital.

 

Thats not how you do business, as someone that works in banking. I know all about this, in the long run you stand to lose more in reduced sales due to loss of reputation than you gain retaining cash from previous GC sales.

 

Reputation can make or break you....

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OMNI]
Players
861 posts
11,836 battles
23 minutes ago, Crysantos said:

We've been very candid about the fact that the CV rework needs to be tested in a live environment because the player behavior on the PTS is different than on the live server - I wish we had a magical solution for this to be perfect from the get go, but it's not that easy. But we're doing our best. I'm not saying each patch is based on issues voiced by the community, I'm saying your feedback is considered in general for our development. Our developers have a vision for the game and incorporate feedback where possible, we try to fix issues / balancing problems perceived by the community where we can. Both early feedback & live server date after the update played a role for the hotfixes and we'll keep working on balancing. We have to be realistic here - tuning and tweaking this rework is going to take some time and your feedback for this is invaluable.

 

Greetings, Crysantos

 

You have ignored 80% of the feedback for CVs ever since the CV rework introduction. You have ignored polls with over 1200 people on EU and over 1000 people on NA with 95% results concerning the spotting mechanic change. Please stop saying you value feedback when 1) that change isn't even mentioned in the 8.1 patch notes. 3.5 weeks after the community voiced it's opinion.

Please stop saying that our feedback matters... when time after time you have proven it means very little if anything.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITR]
Beta Tester, Players
1,334 posts
4,204 battles
31 minutes ago, Crysantos said:

We've been very candid about the fact that the CV rework needs to be tested in a live environment because the player behavior on the PTS is different than on the live server - I wish we had a magical solution for this to be perfect from the get go, but it's not that easy. But we're doing our best. I'm not saying each patch is based on issues voiced by the community, I'm saying your feedback is considered in general for our development. Our developers have a vision for the game and incorporate feedback where possible, we try to fix issues / balancing problems perceived by the community where we can. Both early feedback & live server date after the update played a role for the hotfixes and we'll keep working on balancing. We have to be realistic here - tuning and tweaking this rework is going to take some time and your feedback for this is invaluable.

 

Greetings, Crysantos

Thank you for your reply.
But admitting you're using the live servers and it's players as lab rats without any compensation is indeed very far from magical solution.
There are plenty of reasonable solutions to be found on this forum (freezing the premium time, disregarding this test period - statistic wise, etc).

Even the free captain respec is long over even though you blatantly state that the live server is one big testing ground now - how does this sit in the grand scheme of things you just presented to us?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGB]
Players
2,083 posts
26,322 battles
13 minutes ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

Reputation can make or break you....

100% agree.

A bad reputation will lead to players being unsure about buying premium ships for cash, and just by making a player unsure, will lead to a great loss in your future sales.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×