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

ST, upgrade changes.

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG]
WG Staff, Alpha Tester
6,570 posts
2,224 battles

Squadron's consumables Modification 1 (slot #5):

  • Bonus to the action time of a squadron's consumables increased from 30% to 50%:

The upgrade was inferior in efficiency to other upgrades in the fifth slot.

 

Enhanced Countermeasures (Worcester unique upgrade, slot #5):

  • Bonus to the action time of the "Surveillance Radar" consumable increased from 10% to 20%.

This bonus is being increased to emphasize the difference between the unique Worcester upgrade and the new "Ship's consumables Modification 1" upgrade, which will be available to other ships in the same slot while having similar bonuses.

 

Also, many of you have raised concerns about how some of the new upgrades may affect game balance. For example, the upgrade "Torpedo protection system (slot #5)" may be too effective against ships equipped with low-detectability torpedoes. During testing, we will closely monitor the impact of the upgrades on game balance and, if necessary, make additional changes.

 

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary and subject to change.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UAC]
Players
659 posts
2,215 battles
8 minutes ago, Sehales said:

Squadron's consumables Modification 1 (slot #5):

  • Bonus to the action time of a squadron's consumables increased from 30% to 50%:

The upgrade was inferior in efficiency to other upgrades in the fifth slot.

Yes, absolutely! :Smile_medal:

 

9 minutes ago, Sehales said:

Also, many of you have raised concerns about how some of the new upgrades may affect game balance. For example, the upgrade "Torpedo protection system (slot #5)" may be too effective against ships equipped with low-detectability torpedoes. During testing, we will closely monitor the impact of the upgrades on game balance and, if necessary, make additional changes.

 I approve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[R3B3L]
Players
1,291 posts
32,155 battles
36 minutes ago, Sehales said:

the upgrade "Torpedo protection system (slot #5)" may be too effective against ships equipped with low-detectability torpedoes.

well, thank you for at least considering to "look into" :fish_book:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BMD]
[BMD]
Players
555 posts
18,499 battles
On 1/16/2020 at 12:00 PM, Sehales said:

Squadron's consumables Modification 1 (slot #5):

  • Bonus to the action time of a squadron's consumables increased from 30% to 50%:

The upgrade was inferior in efficiency to other upgrades in the fifth slot.

 

Enhanced Countermeasures (Worcester unique upgrade, slot #5):

  • Bonus to the action time of the "Surveillance Radar" consumable increased from 10% to 20%.

This bonus is being increased to emphasize the difference between the unique Worcester upgrade and the new "Ship's consumables Modification 1" upgrade, which will be available to other ships in the same slot while having similar bonuses.

 

Also, many of you have raised concerns about how some of the new upgrades may affect game balance. For example, the upgrade "Torpedo protection system (slot #5)" may be too effective against ships equipped with low-detectability torpedoes. During testing, we will closely monitor the impact of the upgrades on game balance and, if necessary, make additional changes.

 

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary and subject to change.

Sorry @Sehales at the moment i dont trust WG over doorstep because you have been saying that to many times and did not do anythink about it. It´s just like the boy who cried wolf when said to many times people (playerbase) stoped beliving it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
Players
645 posts
9,404 battles
2 hours ago, Sehales said:

Also, many of you have raised concerns about how some of the new upgrades may affect game balance. For example, the upgrade "Torpedo protection system (slot #5)" may be too effective against ships equipped with low-detectability torpedoes. During testing, we will closely monitor the impact of the upgrades on game balance and, if necessary, make additional changes.

 

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary and subject to change.

Like you're adjusting Henri IV?  With a sledgehammer?  This doesn't exactly give us confidence in your changes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[1701]
Players
139 posts
14,060 battles

“May affect balance” That is the problem right there. Off course it WILL affect balance, and it affects (possitively or negatively) a LOT. Does Wargaming have re resources to adjust this balance along with all the new ships being added. I just don’t see how this module rework is really necessary when the game have much bigger issues imo

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,791 posts
33,218 battles
5 hours ago, Sehales said:

Also, many of you have raised concerns about how some of the new upgrades may affect game balance. For example, the upgrade "Torpedo protection system (slot #5)" may be too effective against ships equipped with low-detectability torpedoes. During testing, we will closely monitor the impact of the upgrades on game balance and, if necessary, make additional changes.

+1. The ones who keep saying "WG doesn't listen to us" need to read this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
Players
645 posts
9,404 battles

L8viathan - "and, if necessary".  So WG willl make the call.  Did you see what happened to the YY?  Spreadsheet says all is fine.  Still feeling positive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,791 posts
33,218 battles

@MyopicHedgehog Yes, i am very positive against them monitoring closely the impact of this upcoming upgrade. 

"So WG willl make the call." 

But who else would or could make the call? You? Me? Are we the developers or testers? No.

 

They are the ones who will test the upgrade, not us. Hence, they will decide , if necessary, not us.

Let's say they didn't monitor closely, or monitored but somehow, later on live servers, it became evident that this module upgrade change does not really work as intended, in other words, some dds really became obsolete. It is again, their responsibility and duty to fix such a condition, not yours or mine.

 

But, at least they listen to their player base. This is, imo, a very important detail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
Players
645 posts
9,404 battles
2 minutes ago, L8viathan said:

@MyopicHedgehog Yes, i am very positive against them monitoring closely the impact of this upcoming upgrade. 

"So WG willl make the call." 

But who else would or could make the call? You? Me? Are we the developers or testers? No.

 

They are the ones who will test the upgrade, not us. Hence, they will decide , if necessary, not us.

Let's say they didn't monitor closely, or monitored but somehow, later on live servers, it became evident that this module upgrade change does not really work as intended, in other words, some dds really became obsolete. It is again, their responsibility and duty to fix such a condition, not yours or mine.

 

But, at least they listen to their player base. This is, imo, a very important detail. 

You are far more optimistic than I - and I really do hope you are correct.  As far as I'm concerned, WG haven't earnt that level of trust or displayed the required level of knowledge of their own game to be able to balance it correctly.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,791 posts
33,218 battles
18 minutes ago, MyopicHedgehog said:

You are far more optimistic than I - and I really do hope you are correct.  As far as I'm concerned, WG haven't earnt that level of trust or displayed the required level of knowledge of their own game to be able to balance it correctly.

Most of us on these forums throw comments out here and there from time to time. When you read some of these comments, you realize that they are just thrown out there without a point. Some people give advice about ships they never played, some criticize DDs, some say torps should be removed, some other say CVs should be removed, some others say HE is  too strong, another one complains why BBs dont have 15km secondaries, some just put an emoji, some just write to write, some open threads with no point, many open repeating threads, some do irrelevant comment on threads, and sometimes we see constructive ones, helpful ones, or warning ones. Shortly, it is like jungle and mods are trying their best to keep it clean. In a previous thread regarding upgrades, we raised our concerns about this specific upgrade. Now WG confirmed that they will monitor it. There is nothing untrustworthy here. If they didn't care about our previous comments, they could have very well ignored all, and not include this sentence here. Hence, i  trust what they write. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAU]
[MIAU]
Players
4,046 posts
2 hours ago, L8viathan said:

+1. The ones who keep saying "WG doesn't listen to us" need to read this.

Actions speak louder then words.

So far nothing is changed.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,791 posts
33,218 battles
1 minute ago, Egoleter said:

Actions speak louder then words.

True.

1 minute ago, Egoleter said:

So far nothing is changed.

Well, they didn't implement the torp module upgrade change yet, did they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAU]
[MIAU]
Players
4,046 posts
Just now, L8viathan said:

Well, they didn't implement the torp module upgrade change yet, did they?

They didn't plan to. And there is always internal testing, then supertesting first. I tested for them as a ST, so I know the procedure.

The announcement so far did not change anything. It just repeated what some already knew and what they told us in previous posts on the topic.

 

Right now, for me, personal opinion here, the trustworthiness of Wargaming isn't exactly very high. So until I see an actual change to the module (and how can it not impact deepwater or slow moving torps that rely on their low detectability?) I will remain sceptical about anything they say.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
Players
645 posts
9,404 battles

If they use data from their supertesters, we could well be doomed - just saw a Supertester playing a Marceau on Flamuu's stream completely n00b it and get destroyed...  Not the best way to get your data.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4_0_4]
Players
8,012 posts
14,352 battles
9 hours ago, Sehales said:

Also, many of you have raised concerns about how some of the new upgrades may affect game balance. For example, the upgrade "Torpedo protection system (slot #5)" may be too effective against ships equipped with low-detectability torpedoes. During testing, we will closely monitor the impact of the upgrades on game balance and, if necessary, make additional changes.

 

giphy.gif

 

With all going on lately, do you really expect us to swallow your PR-statements?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BMD]
[BMD]
Players
555 posts
18,499 battles
8 hours ago, Minos_of_Creta said:

If they speed up all the torps to 60-62 knots and give them 8km range, will be ok.

You are kidding right ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NHSOS]
Players
280 posts
11,492 battles
3 hours ago, Cammo1962 said:

You are kidding right ??

as they kidding that the module will not affect the game play...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
2,789 posts
6,795 battles
On 1/16/2020 at 5:50 PM, L8viathan said:

But, at least they listen to their player base. This is, imo, a very important detail. 

sweet_summer_child.gif.5f4a3d679888782051aebe28339b2af7.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BMD]
[BMD]
Players
555 posts
18,499 battles
14 hours ago, Minos_of_Creta said:

as they kidding that the module will not affect the game play...

Oh yes it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GJE]
Players
61 posts
9,449 battles

With Jingles' his logic, a casino isn't gambling either. You exchange your money for chips and then you use those chips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×