General CV related discussions.

[mcboernester]

A little follow up here since its not NDA -> i asked if there any plans to buff the carriers again in response to the decreasing player numbers

[El2aZeR]

16 hours ago, mcboernester said:

I'm not 100% sure how accurate marple is as a source ( no hidden accs for example, also ranked is listed separately). 

 

It is a perfectly adequate source. Hidden accounts make up a minuscule amount of players anyway as can be seen here:

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/tableofaccounts.html

(Hidden account number of the respective server is top right below "table of Accounts".)

 

23 minutes ago, mcboernester said:

A little follow up here since its not NDA -> i asked if there any plans to buff the carriers again in response to the decreasing player numbers

 

Ah, yes. "Balancing" by population.

 

[Pikkozoikum]

Though they don't balance by population, rather they use population as an indicator, that something could be wrong, so they check that.

[El2aZeR]

40 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Though they don't balance by population, rather they use population as an indicator, that something could be wrong, so they check that.

 

Which is why Montana UU was nerfed explicitly because it was too popular to name a famous example.

Popularity is an extremely important "balancing" factor for WG as has been proven several times regardless of what they say.

[Pikkozoikum]

16 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Which is why Montana UU was nerfed explicitly because it was too popular to name a famous example.

Popularity is an extremely important "balancing" factor for WG as has been proven several times regardless of what they say.

Don't see any evidence, also no idea what Montana UU means. Halland, Shimakaze, Yamato are very popular ships, but they didn't get nerfed.

As I said, they rather use high population as an indicator. That's why Yamato and Shima doesn't get nerfed even with high population.

Also CV was never really a high populated class, and still gets nerfed.

 

That they might nerf a high population ship is not unlikely, because it might be popular, because it's overpowered. That is more the context.

 

If they balance around popularity, we would see a complete different balancing pattern. All the time the unpopular ships would get buffs and the popular nerfs, no matter if they are good or bad.

[Sunleader]

8 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Don't see any evidence, also no idea what Montana UU means. Halland, Shimakaze, Yamato are very popular ships, but they didn't get nerfed.

As I said, they rather use high population as an indicator. That's why Yamato and Shima doesn't get nerfed even with high population.

Also CV was never really a high populated class, and still gets nerfed.

 

That they might nerf a high population ship is not unlikely, because it might be popular, because it's overpowered. That is more the context.

 

If they balance around popularity, we would see a complete different balancing pattern. All the time the unpopular ships would get buffs and the popular nerfs, no matter if they are good or bad.

 

UU means the Unique Upgrade.

The Special Upgrade Module available to some T10s

 

WG Rebalanced them based on 2 Factors.

1.

How much Percent of Ship Owners used to the UU.

2.

How much better the Winrate became when the UU was used.

 

Thanks to which a few Ships actually had a Case.

Where the UU effectively did not Improve the Winrate at all.

But the UU was Nerfed Purely because an Unproportional Large Percentage of Players used the UU.

While a few other Ships. Actually had their UU Buffed despite that UU already Providing a higher Winrate than Ships without that UU.

Not because that UU was weak. But simply because that UU was not very Popular among the Players.

 

Unfortunately. WG after that did not Release how much Change this made.

Because Frankly. I would take bets. Thats some of these Nerfed UUs are now in Fact Dropping the Winrate of their Ships.

 

 

[Miscommunication_dept]

10 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

UU means the Unique Upgrade.

The Special Upgrade Module available to some T10s

 

WG Rebalanced them based on 2 Factors.

1.

How much Percent of Ship Owners used to the UU.

2.

How much better the Winrate became when the UU was used.

 

Thanks to which a few Ships actually had a Case.

Where the UU effectively did not Improve the Winrate at all.

But the UU was Nerfed Purely because an Unproportional Large Percentage of Players used the UU.

While a few other Ships. Actually had their UU Buffed despite that UU already Providing a higher Winrate than Ships without that UU.

Not because that UU was weak. But simply because that UU was not very Popular among the Players.

 

Unfortunately. WG after that did not Release how much Change this made.

Because Frankly. I would take bets. Thats some of these Nerfed UUs are now in Fact Dropping the Winrate of their Ships.

 

 

Wg also failed to take into account the fact that someone who had grinded hundreds of games to get the upgrade might be a better player in that ship

OR that those who have ground  it out will not then want to leave it in their inventory.

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

17 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Where the UU effectively did not Improve the Winrate at all.

I don't think, that modules in general affect the WR that much, because it's only a very little improvment of the whole ship. The module must be extremely overpowered to really see a different effect.

 

19 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

But the UU was Nerfed Purely because an Unproportional Large Percentage of Players used the UU.

Which is an indication, that this module might be imbalanced. It's not about balancing the ships, it's about balancing the modules. Best example might be Zao, I think her UU was way better than any other option

 

21 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Unfortunately. WG after that did not Release how much Change this made.

Because Frankly. I would take bets. Thats some of these Nerfed UUs are now in Fact Dropping the Winrate of their Ships.

The effect of 1 module should be still very small, because you still have the base values of the ship, the skills, other modules etc. It can of course have an influence, but a very small

 

[mcboernester]

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Ah, yes. "Balancing" by population.

 

If i remember it correctly, and thats already some time ago, there was a statement that "if we see the popularity drops we will buff the class accordingly" But im waaaay too lazy to search for that now 

[Sunleader]

41 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I don't think, that modules in general affect the WR that much, because it's only a very little improvment of the whole ship. The module must be extremely overpowered to really see a different effect.

 

Which is an indication, that this module might be imbalanced. It's not about balancing the ships, it's about balancing the modules. Best example might be Zao, I think her UU was way better than any other option

 

The effect of 1 module should be still very small, because you still have the base values of the ship, the skills, other modules etc. It can of course have an influence, but a very small

 

 

All of which is Irrelevant.

Because the Acclaimed Fact remains. That WG will Willingly Ignore Performance Data and instead give out Buffs and Nerfs Purely by how Popular something is.

 

And this is not a Case Limited to Unique Upgrades. This has happened for Ships Repeatedly as well.

The Reason why German Battleships went for Years without Buffs even tough their Performance was Horrendously Bad. Was because they were still Popular.

And especially on this Topic. CVs are one of the Prime Examples. As Several Times they were Buffed despite their Performance being Head and Shoulders above most Ships already. Simply because they were not Popular enough.

 

Of course being Popular can be an Indication of something being OP. But a Single Indication is not Evidence nor even remotely reliable. Considering that being Popular can come from Plenty different Reasons.

In case of German BBs for example. Being Popular came mostly from the Legendary German Bismarck and Tirpitz in WW2. 

 

 

 

[Sunleader]

55 minutes ago, mcboernester said:

If i remember it correctly, and thats already some time ago, there was a statement that "if we see the popularity drops we will buff the class accordingly" But im waaaay too lazy to search for that now 

 

Frankly. I am not even sure how some People even try to Deny this.

WG has been doing that for Years and has never really made a Secret out of it either.

 

 

[El2aZeR]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Don't see any evidence

 

Not that you will accept it as usual, but:

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/30

 

As you can tell, Montana UU WR difference was well within acceptable bounds, yet it was nerfed purely based on popularity. The nerf also happened in spite of other UUs running a popularity only slightly below that of Montana, meaning WG adheres to a hard cutoff based on an arbitrary value (most likely 65%) rather than actually thinking about their decisions.

[Alfa_Tau]

4 hours ago, mcboernester said:

A little follow up here since its not NDA -> i asked if there any plans to buff the carriers again in response to the decreasing player numbers

"we do not deny the possibility that the changes shall be made" 

it's a masterpiece of comunications skill. 

 

"we do not deny"... but at the same time "we do not commit ourself.." 

 

"changes shall be made" changes do not imply anything positive per se. the Rocket NERF was a "change"... 

 

It would be interesting to know how many premium Tier 8 CV have been sold in the last month. this will be the only driver to "not deny the possibility that changes shall be made" . 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

13 hours ago, mcboernester said:

If i remember it correctly, and thats already some time ago, there was a statement that "if we see the popularity drops we will buff the class accordingly" But im waaaay too lazy to search for that now 

If you mean the summer sumit, then that was a misinterpretation of people. They asked multiple times, if they balance by popularity, first they gave an explanation, then after they ask again they said "no".

The Explanation gets often wrong interpretated. They said something, if Carrier is too strong, they will nerf them more. The part, which is wrong interpretated. They said something like, they don't want nerf too heavy, so people wouldn't leave the class

What WG means -> They want nerf slightly stepwise, so they get closer the "balanced" status and not hard-nerf it, so the class is underpowered and unplayable, which would make no sense.

 

Never saw, that they literally said, they balance by popularity.

 

I think the explanation back then was also bad. So I think they meant something like this ->CV gets nerfed too hard -> CV is unfun to play, because hard nerfs -> CV gets unpopular -> WG sees popularity

But they explained it more like "We see popularity -> We don't want it uncomfortable to play"

 

Also Flamu said "Sounds like you artifically boost it, to make it popular" And he said "no"

[ghostbuster_]

16 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Though they don't balance by population,

 WG literally admited that they use popularity as a balancing factor. So, you know which parameters are taken into account when it comes to balancing better than WG?

Quote

rather they use population as an indicator, that something could be wrong, so they check that.

Said who? Not WG i can tell you that much. Because they made it clear popularity is a balancing factor for them. 

[Lordcrafty]

17 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Don't see any evidence,

it's in the most recent QnA, iirc where they gave an answer relating to zao's state of balance that they took games played as a major factor for balancing.

Also, it's been a while how, is the discussion going? I see that we've almost reached 400 pages now 

[Pikkozoikum]

16 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

it's in the most recent QnA, iirc where they gave an answer relating to zao's state of balance that they took games played as a major factor for balancing.

Also, it's been a while how, is the discussion going? I see that we've almost reached 400 pages now 

The Zao comment is weird, yes. It actually needs a better answer to make sure, what they actually mean, because it makes not much sense. But it doesn't say, they balance around popularity, otherwise the Zao would get nerfed, not?

In the same post, they also say that

" we take into account the percentage of wins, absolute damage, relative damage, average number of destroyed ships, interactions with key areas, potential damage, analyzing how a ship plays against each class of ships and a significant amount of other statistics. "

 

That doesn't sound like "we balance around popularity".

Though there might some correlatin between popularity and strength of a ship

 

 

 

[Lordcrafty]

2 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

 But it doesn't say, they balance around popularity, otherwise the Zao would get nerfed, not?

zao would definitely not be popular enough for that. They said in the reply themselves that they think it's at an acceptable level.

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, Lordcrafty said:

zao would definitely not be popular enough for that. They said in the reply themselves that they think it's at an acceptable level.

I think the most popular ships are still Yamato and Shimakaze, and those also don't get hard nerfed ^^

 

I don't like everything, what WG does, but going with wrong interpretation and then meme-ing about it, is kinda weird. It's fine, if topics are discussed critically, what is wrong and right. But there is often rant, that is undeserved. Like some people have a default attitude for ranting about stuff. I'm sure, some people would even rant about new maps or dubloon gifts ^^

[Nibenay78]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I think the most popular ships are still Yamato and Shimakaze, and those also don't get hard nerfed ^^

 

I don't like everything, what WG does, but going with wrong interpretation and then meme-ing about it, is kinda weird. It's fine, if topics are discussed critically, what is wrong and right. But there is often rant, that is undeserved. Like some people have a default attitude for ranting about stuff. I'm sure, some people would even rant about new maps or dubloon gifts ^^

So when do we get ballistic missile subs? They dont have to be fun for anyone as long as WG finds they should be introduced (read: make money). We can always "balance" them up and down for a while.

[Nibenay78]

20 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Though they don't balance by population, rather they use population as an indicator, that something could be wrong, so they check that.

Yes it does indicate something is wrong. Even I can tell you that...

[Pikkozoikum]

8 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

So when do we get ballistic missile subs? They dont have to be fun for anyone as long as WG finds they should be introduced (read: make money). We can always "balance" them up and down for a while.

What is the context about ballistic missiles? No idea what you want say here^^

 

8 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

Yes it does indicate something is wrong. Even I can tell you that...

Yes, that is the point of that ^^

[BLUB__BLUB]

8 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

Yes it does indicate something is wrong. Even I can tell you that...

Nerffff the French.... 

 

Spoiler

 

[Panocek]

8 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

What is the context about ballistic missiles? No idea what you want say here^^

WG already tampered with guided missiles in the past, nothing stops them unshelving the idea and combining with existing gimmicks. Thus, guided missile destroyers, cruisers, battleships and finally subs, but only after adding hybrid subs (I-400 class + weeb version from Arpeggio).

 

Guided anti ship missiles for CV squadrons would be cherry on top 

 

That said, early missile that WG could put onto then "leaked" Kildin DDG, SS-N-1, had, according to RU wiki, only 320kg HE warhead. For reference, Midway uses 2000lb/900kg bomb, with 450kg explosive filler... and drops 6 of them in one go. Said missile also was subsonic, so 300m/s velocity at best, compared to 700m/s+ on most naval guns.

 

So, for all intents and purposes said missile would be damage equivalent of airborne European torpedo, guided, but single launch instead spreads and possibly able to be intercepted by AA. Also ship in question had NO guns that would be even remotely considered as "DD main armament" by game standards... so MAJOR buffs to the missiles would be in order to make Kildins even remotely viable. And looking at wiki, next RU DDG that had actual guns, Sovremenny class is from 1980s

[Miscommunication_dept]

There are many ways in which Wargaming could destroy this game.

 

We are only scratching the surface.