Another cost of test ship secrecy

[MementoMori_6030]

Am 7.5.2020 um 01:44, Inappropriate_noob sagte:

I am lucky to see most of them when I play my alt, always a good game most of the time and keeps the chat civil too

Same here! 

Edit: Again! I see more Asamas than Amagis nowadays.

[Excavatus]

14 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

if wg is strungling so hard to ballance a ship in training rooms with so many ccs and free testers .they could give it to me and i will balanced it alone in a training room in a week....

oh buoy! 

and this opinion clearly explains everything you've wrote here :) 

 

If only it was that easy mate :) 

But since you are so sure of it, can you please give me the names of the games you developed and balanced at your work. (I assume you work for a gaming company as a developer since you know it so well!)

[cpt_sparrow_jack]

3 hours ago, Excavatus said:

oh buoy! 

and this opinion clearly explains everything you've wrote here :) 

 

If only it was that easy mate :) 

But since you are so sure of it, can you please give me the names of the games you developed and balanced at your work. (I assume you work for a gaming company as a developer since you know it so well!)

it was full of sarcasm with a spice of reallity combined! :)

 also enlight me in smthing all those forumities that they are so sure thats the only balance in the game has to be done in randoms and there is no other way are they developers in IT companies or MIT graduates??cause i bet they are not

 

[Excavatus]

23 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

also enlight me in smthing all those forumities that they are so sure thats the only balance in the game has to be done in randoms and there is no other way

what do you balance against the new ship? 
random players.. 
how can you do that without seing how that ship behaves in randoms and the random players behave against it? 

rough balancing are being done in PTS and Close testing..
but you cannot polish it.. you cannot tweak it.. without testing in randoms.. 
and you cannot create random battle conditions artificially it is impossible to mimic.. too huge.. too different.. too variable.. 

 

That is called field testing, and every new thing goes under it.. 
It is so basic to understand actually :D

 

[TobiAssho]

14 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

maybe what you dont understand ..12 testers vs 12 testers in multiple training rooms with a variety of diferent ships with diferent specs and every team will have for example 2-3 of the testing ship.as  long time as it gets to collect the data for balance hahahaha looooooooool (sorry i couldnt help it) you need.no bots not nothing (and testers are  part of the player base )

once again is not our job to be part in the procedure of testing a companies product  . we are costumers, maybe you dont pay but the majority of the player base pays to exist this game

 

Following your suggestion would reduce the testing capathity by over 90%. 24 testers could test 2-3 ships. If they do it on the regular server they can test 24 ships. Beside the fact that you have to organize sessions on a testserver instead of just clicking into battle. Either ships would be released in a much slower pace or with way less data collected. Both are not desireable. 

 

Additionally 12vs12 testgames are not able to represent 12vs12 regular random battles. Players play different in testgames than they do in regular battles. So even if you would collect enough data it would not match with the results you would have in random battles.

 

How often do you see a testship in random battles? Every 2-3 games max? Maybe when they are very fresh a bit more often, but usually less. So on average it happens pretty rarely that you see a ship in testing.

Since I test ships ~2 years, I found 1 ship that was completely out of line and should have never been tested in that way: RTS version of Zepplin, but it went live like this. There were a few very strong ships which got nerfed before release like AP Stalingrad, Kremlin, Slava but most ships only were changed a little before they went public. None of the tested ships boosted my winrate outrageously. Some mistakes were made in the past: Belfast, Nikolai, Gulio, Kamikaze ..., but they were tested like this and went live like this, so dont blame the op op testverison. If you look at the past 12-18 month, I cant remember any testship that was utterly broken when tested and completely changed when going live.

 

So from a tester point of view, I dont any reason to not test ships on the live server. You gain more reliable data in a much bigger quantity, while very rarely supprising players with a ship they are not familiar with. There is no such thing as brokenly op testships.

[Excavatus]

3 minutes ago, TobiAssho said:

Following your suggestion would reduce the testing capathity by over 90%. 24 testers could test 2-3 ships

and lets not forget, 

there are volunteers and tester clans who just play the test ships.. 
these guys would almost definetely not go in a test server to test ships... 

[cpt_sparrow_jack]

1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

and lets not forget, 

there are volunteers and tester clans who just play the test ships.. 
these guys would almost definetely not go in a test server to test ships... 

thank you!!finally exactly to my point!!thats the main reason that balance polishing is not happening in test servers and not that it cant be done by that way !so this is not my problem and i dont blame the testers          [ even if they have the secret pleasure to "test" op unbalanced ships against random players that they dont have a clue what this ships specs are (so they dont act acordingly against to this test ship as they would act when it would be released and they would know the gimmics and specs of the ship,so as you see Randoms is neither the best field to balance)   ..Or making new youtube videos and thats the reasons that they got frustrated from my comment]             

but wg that wants to do it as cheap as possible for their profit...

 

And something that i want to add and i realy dont want to be  offensive to anyone..the majority of the playerbase that are paying or playing the game so it can be healthy, they are not visiting this forum but mostly testers and those that they are so much into the game .so you cant hear the real opinion of the playerbase about any matter of the game because there isnt enough player base spectrum and its onesided

 

have a good day!

[Yedwy]

I dont understand why the hostility twards test ships... 

 

I for one enjoy collecting early trophies... 

[Excavatus]

34 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

but wg that wants to do it as cheap as possible for their profit...

that is completely besides the point.. 

and although you think I've made your point, It can't be any more far away from that. 

 

There is no way to balance ships FOR randoms, without putting them into randoms.. 

how hard it is to understand this logic? you cannot create random battle environment in a test server.. 

you don't.. impossible.. nyet.. nada.. no.. zilch.. 

Because human behaviour.. we are not testing space suits under water.. or in a zero G flight.. 

Because Zero G is zero G everywhere.. 

people act, play, react differently.. 

even the testers act and behave differently.. in test serve and randoms.. 

 

[TobiAssho]

39 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

thank you!!finally exactly to my point!!thats the main reason that balance polishing is not happening in test servers and not that it cant be done by that way !so this is not my problem and i dont blame the testers  [ even if they have the secret pleasure to "test" op unbalanced ships against random players

 

Balancing is happening when creating a ship. Balancing in happening in internal tests. Balancing is happening on closed testservers. Balancing is happening on public testservers. Balancing is happening on the live server. Balancing is not done like 1+1=2. Even ships that are currently in the the game are constantly balanced. (Point in case: Hindenburg.)

"They have they presure to test op unbalanced shits against random player"

Which of the ships tested and released in the past 12 month was op when tested and drasticly changed when released? Give us examples, not just random accusations.

 

39 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

they have the secret pleasure to "test" op unbalanced ships against random players that they dont have a clue what this ships specs are

 

Everything is posted on the devblog loooooong before a ship comes on the public server. Your next argument would be: But most players dont read that. I agree. The same most players dont look at other ships beside those which they play in port to check their specs, speed, armor layout etc. So when a ship is released they would have the same issues. So better dont bring any new ships for them???

[cpt_sparrow_jack]

2 hours ago, TobiAssho said:

They have they presure to test op unbalanced shits against random player"

Which of the ships tested and released in the past 12 month was op when tested and drasticly changed when released? Give us examples, not just random accusations.

 

is the game 12 months old?????? i dont get why you put that limitation ..

g zeppelin

gulio ceasare

stalingrad

portlava

and the list goes on but im boring right now ...actually the most of premium test ships are op and they tune them by nerfs.(yesterday i was waching an Agir op secondary build video that was wreking poor souls in random and they dint know what just happened to them lol, probably they are gonna nerf it cause you know op) 

and dont tell me that all those ships are op even after release cause to be at the state that they are now they passed from the god mode state that has been  tested in randoms

it s nothing bad for someone to admit that  enjoys testing op ships against random players lol

but dont tell me that is the only way to balance a ship.I could agree that is the cheap way from the prespective of WG and the fun way from the prespective of player testers but not the cool way from the prespective of the random plyer

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TobiAssho]

15 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

is the game 12 months old?????? i dont get why you put that limitation ..

Because testing quality and philosophy changed in the past 5 years.

 

15 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

g zeppelin

The final version was stupidly broken, but not only in testing, but when released, so not proving that a testship is more op then the release. Was also not sold again until the CV rework. WG very quickly figured out that they did a bad thing there.

 

15 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

gulio ceasare

The version which is currently in the game is way too strong. Cant remember testing it (T5 is not my field of interest), but was not stronger when testing iirc. So another ship not fitting your arugment. We did some testing with the T6 version, but it was not strong enough.

 

15 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

stalingrad

Was tested in various iterations, none very much different than what we have right now. Who ever told you that it is an op ship lied to you. (Point in case: your stats in it.) It was not considered stronger when in testing. Maybe the AP only version, but it was way more situational and definetly not straight up stronger.

 

15 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

portlava

I dont remember how it was in testing or how strong it is.

 

15 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

(yesterday i was waching an Agir op secondary build that was wreking poor souls in random and they dint know what just happened lol probably they are gonna nerf it cause you know op) and they tune them by nerfs.

Ägir 2ndary was nerfed because the idea of 2ndary cruiser as a concept didnt work out as planed. The ship was underpeforming in tests. Thats why they killed the 2ndary and buffed the mainguns significantly. The 2ndaries were super situational and sometimes working fine, but not constistant at all. If you saw a secondary build Ägir in battle yesterday, clean your screen.

 

15 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

and the list goes on but im boring right now ...actually the most of premium test ships are op

As shown, none of the ships you listed actually fits into the concept: OP as test and changed for release. Most of the (premium) ships I tested were fine and needed just a little tuning at best.

 

15 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

and dont tell me that all those ships are op even after release cause to be at the state that they are now they passed from the god mode state that has been  tested in randoms

is not bad for someone to admit that  enjoys testing op ships against random players lol

I dont need to tell you, thats all well documented, just look it up. The same op op Stalingrad we tested is now driven by you with 51% winrate. Looks not broken to me. The stats get worse over time because more people get the ships and usually the first who get a new ships are the most engaged players who usually perform better. You can see this effect for every ship comming out. Stalingrad is the perfect example. When it first game out average dmg was around 120k and winrate 60%. Now its at 57% and 90k, dropping.

You just sound very salty that you are not testing the ships. I still dont get any valid argument from you which ships should not appear in random for testing.

[cpt_sparrow_jack]

1 hour ago, TobiAssho said:

Because testing quality and philosophy changed in the past 5 years.

 

The final version was stupidly broken, but not only in testing, but when released, so not proving that a testship is more op then the release. Was also not sold again until the CV rework. WG very quickly figured out that they did a bad thing there.

 

The version which is currently in the game is way too strong. Cant remember testing it (T5 is not my field of interest), but was not stronger when testing iirc. So another ship not fitting your arugment. We did some testing with the T6 version, but it was not strong enough.

 

Was tested in various iterations, none very much different than what we have right now. Who ever told you that it is an op ship lied to you. (Point in case: your stats in it.) It was not considered stronger when in testing. Maybe the AP only version, but it was way more situational and definetly not straight up stronger.

 

I dont remember how it was in testing or how strong it is.

 

Ägir 2ndary was nerfed because the idea of 2ndary cruiser as a concept didnt work out as planed. The ship was underpeforming in tests. Thats why they killed the 2ndary and buffed the mainguns significantly. The 2ndaries were super situational and sometimes working fine, but not constistant at all. If you saw a secondary build Ägir in battle yesterday, clean your screen.

 

As shown, none of the ships you listed actually fits into the concept: OP as test and changed for release. Most of the (premium) ships I tested were fine and needed just a little tuning at best.

 

I dont need to tell you, thats all well documented, just look it up. The same op op Stalingrad we tested is now driven by you with 51% winrate. Looks not broken to me. The stats get worse over time because more people get the ships and usually the first who get a new ships are the most engaged players who usually perform better. You can see this effect for every ship comming out. Stalingrad is the perfect example. When it first game out average dmg was around 120k and winrate 60%. Now its at 57% and 90k, dropping.

You just sound very salty that you are not testing the ships. I still dont get any valid argument from you which ships should not appear in random for testing.

bla bla bla bla ...

and what was that redicoulous argument 'im salty cause i dont test the ships'lol

why was anything hard 5 years since that i have the account to become a free tester?or  i had to be a unique player it was just an application nothin special so.... lol

[TobiAssho]

2 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

bla bla bla bla

Typical reaction of someone running out of arguments 

[Allied_Winter]

As a friendly reminder to everyone arguing here: Keep in mind that it is ok to disagree! Starting to get OT or throwing insults about because the other person won't agree to one's post is a no go! So please, think about that before continuing!

[cpt_sparrow_jack]

3 hours ago, TobiAssho said:

The version which is currently in the game is way too strong. Cant remember testing it (T5 is not my field of interest), but was not stronger when testing iirc. So another ship not fitting your arugment. We did some testing with the T6 version, but it was not strong enough.

 

lol nice arguments by your side though that many testing premiums havent op versions while testing them before their final real server versions loooooooooooooool

 

' T5 G ceasar 'cant remember dint tested but the version that is currently in game was not stronger'(so how you know that!!!!!magic ??6th sense???)'

'portlava i dont remember how it was in testing';

Agir.''Ägir 2ndary was nerfed because the idea of 2ndary cruiser as a concept didnt work out as planed''.(IN other words why to nerf something when it wasnt op)

 

stalingrad.'' It was not considered stronger when in testing. Maybe the AP only version''

 

There were a few very strong ships which got nerfed before release like AP Stalingrad, Kremlin, Slava but most ships only were changed a little before they went public (your words in your prevous comment not mine, so my arguments still exists i believe its you that you dont have any )

 

And  thats the better  testing quality and philosophy  that changed in last 12 months people with full constructive arguments hahahhahahahhahah

[Bratoev]

I still wonder if the details beyond national flavor and ship class have that much of an impact on how you play against a particular ship. I mean you see a russian battleship, what difference would it have made if you knew the exact minute details of its specs on how you handled the fight?

[TobiAssho]

2 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

lol nice arguments by your side that many testing premiums havent op versions while testing them before their final real server versions loooooooooooooool

You can follow the devblog. All changes are public and well documented. I cant recall big changes in testships in the past 12 month (reload changed from 10s to 11s wont count as big changes.)

 

2 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

' T5 G ceasar 'cant remember dint tested but the version that is currently in game is way too strong'(so how you know that!!!!!magic ??6th sense???)'

SubOctavian posted their thoughs on that ship on reddit a while ago. They consider it as too strong and tried to change it and thats why the T6 version was tested. Look up its stats, the community vastly agrees with that view, so its not just me.

 

2 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

'portlava i dont remember how it was in testing';

Why do you give me a faceplam for telling you that I cant remember the testing?

But for you I checked the devblog and the current status, it got buffed before release, reload changed from 30s to 28s. Thats the only major change I found. Tell me why it was op when tested?

 

2 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

Agir.''Ägir 2ndary was nerfed because the idea of 2ndary cruiser as a concept didnt work out as planed''.(IN other words why to nerf something when it wasnt op)

They nerfed secondaries and buffed mainguns. If you would just buff mainguns and not take away the secondaries it would be too strong. Thats called balancing. You take something away to buff something else. They ditched the concept of a secondary focused cruiser because the gameplay was not feeling good enough and the ship had not the right "hardware configuartion" (secondary placement and arcs, armorment etc) to make it work propperly.

 

2 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

stalingrad.'' It was not considered stronger when in testing. Maybe the AP only version''

 

There were a few very strong ships which got nerfed before release like AP Stalingrad, Kremlin, Slava but most ships only were changed a little before they went public (your words in your prevous comment not mine, so my arguments still exists i believe its you that you dont have any )

The testversions of Stalin and the released vesions are very similar and neither version is considered as op after a bigger chunk of the community got its hands on it. As mentioned, your stats proofe it. The changes that were made during the testing were minor except that the concept of an AP only version was terminated. I dont have any data or info to support my gutfeeling, but having played it, I would consider it as strong, but definetely not flat out stronger than the HE/AP version we have right now. If you cant play the current Stalin, that version would have not been your friend too.

 

2 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

And  thats the better  testing quality and philosophy  that changed in last 12 months people with full constructive arguments hahahhahahahhahah

To be fair, after testing so many ships, I cant recall all testing in the past, thats why I asked about the last 12 month. If the issue is as immenent as you want to make it look like and you cant get any example from the past 12 month, it might be no problem at all.

It has been a while since WG released a completely broken ship, so it is save to assume that the testing and balancing got better since the early days. As biggest mistakes I (and, I guess and mostly they admitted it, WG) would consider: Belfast, RTS Zepplin, Giulio, Kamikaze + clones, Gremmy, Nikolai, RTS Enterprise. Maybe I forget some, but those are the dark hours of WG balancing. All of them were released longer than 2 years ago, iirc. So there is definetly a positive trend when it comes to avoiding big mistakes.
 

We can debate about Smolenks, but it was not changed during testing, so it was no op testship. Its completely unfun to play against and in my eyes not well designed. But calling it op is just a insult to other op ships. Belfast 55% winrate, Kamikaze and clones 57%, Giulio 57%, Nikolai 60% compared to Smolensk 49%.

 

 

So, I am still waiting for any argument from you proving, that testships are op op. Neither of your examples past that test. Also you are using a bit too many discrediting emotes to make up for your lack of arguments.

[cpt_sparrow_jack]

35 minutes ago, TobiAssho said:

You can follow the devblog. All changes are public and well documented. I cant recall big changes in testships in the past 12 month (reload changed from 10s to 11s wont count as big changes.)

 

SubOctavian posted their thoughs on that ship on reddit a while ago. They consider it as too strong and tried to change it and thats why the T6 version was tested. Look up its stats, the community vastly agrees with that view, so its not just me.

 

Why do you give me a faceplam for telling you that I cant remember the testing?

But for you I checked the devblog and the current status, it got buffed before release, reload changed from 30s to 28s. Thats the only major change I found. Tell me why it was op when tested?

 

They nerfed secondaries and buffed mainguns. If you would just buff mainguns and not take away the secondaries it would be too strong. Thats called balancing. You take something away to buff something else. They ditched the concept of a secondary focused cruiser because the gameplay was not feeling good enough and the ship had not the right "hardware configuartion" (secondary placement and arcs, armorment etc) to make it work propperly.

 

The testversions of Stalin and the released vesions are very similar and neither version is considered as op after a bigger chunk of the community got its hands on it. As mentioned, your stats proofe it. The changes that were made during the testing were minor except that the concept of an AP only version was terminated. I dont have any data or info to support my gutfeeling, but having played it, I would consider it as strong, but definetely not flat out stronger than the HE/AP version we have right now. If you cant play the current Stalin, that version would have not been your friend too.

 

To be fair, after testing so many ships, I cant recall all testing in the past, thats why I asked about the last 12 month. If the issue is as immenent as you want to make it look like and you cant get any example from the past 12 month, it might be no problem at all.

It has been a while since WG released a completely broken ship, so it is save to assume that the testing and balancing got better since the early days. As biggest mistakes I (and, I guess and mostly they admitted it, WG) would consider: Belfast, RTS Zepplin, Giulio, Kamikaze + clones, Gremmy, Nikolai, RTS Enterprise. Maybe I forget some, but those are the dark hours of WG balancing. All of them were released longer than 2 years ago, iirc. So there is definetly a positive trend when it comes to avoiding big mistakes.
 

We can debate about Smolenks, but it was not changed during testing, so it was no op testship. Its completely unfun to play against and in my eyes not well designed. But calling it op is just a insult to other op ships. Belfast 55% winrate, Kamikaze and clones 57%, Giulio 57%, Nikolai 60% compared to Smolensk 49%.

 

 

So, I am still waiting for any argument from you proving, that testships are op op. Neither of your examples past that test. Also you are using a bit too many discrediting emotes to make up for your lack of arguments.

dude because  you are starting a conversation with your own brain as it is me and you are going the discusion to a point  that i dont really care could you make me a favour to read my 2 first comments in this post?Relax you  test and geek boyz we got it you have fun with your new toyz wg never gonna change this ''briliant'' balance system but there are some other opinions in this ''democratic'' forum too(surprise!!!)

 

[TobiAssho]

 

13 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

dude because  you are starting a conversation with your own brain as it is me and you are going the discusion to a point  that i dont really care could you make me a favour to read my 2 first comments in this post?Relax you  test and geek boyz we got it you have fun with your new toyz wg never gonna change this ''briliant'' balance system but there are some other opinions in this ''democratic'' forum too(surprise!!!)

Never called their balancing brilliant, dont you put words into my mouth which I never said. Just for you, I checked your first 2 posts. They are lacking any arguments and are just salty. I have no issue with anyone saying that strawberry icecream tastes better than chocolate. Even if chocolate is superior imo. Everyone has a different taste and thats fine. But saying in my opinon the world is flat is wrong. Even if neither of us ever managed to sail around it.

You are saying the world is flat, without any arguments to prove your point:

 

On 5/6/2020 at 4:05 PM, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

i believe is so wrong in so many levels WG to test unbalanced ships in real servers that we are paying premium time camos special flags etc

 

Which are the unbalanced ships? Do you consider finetuning on the live server as wrong, if more than one guy here stated, why it is necessary? I would agree with you if a) there are multiple testships each game, b) most of those testships were brokenly op.

Give me any example from the past 12 month.

 

On 5/6/2020 at 4:36 PM, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

1.i disagree..it is not our job to be part of the testing prosedure thats wg company problem.(as we spending real money for  prem time flags camos etc)

 

 

1. You are not bothered with the testing. Balancing and therefor good testing is not only WGs problem. Its all our problem, because we want a balanced game.

If you look outside of worships: Corona treatment is not only tested on apes and pigs, its tested also on humans, like all drugs have to be at some point. Fully automated cars were tested on public streets before they were licenced to be there in big numbers. As you can easily see, not every test can be done under test conditions. There need to be tests in real conditions for good results.

 

On 5/6/2020 at 4:36 PM, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

2.a solution could be the testers to play the ships in training rooms so as  wg gives to them ingame goodies they could spend some time all togeather to test the ships.

As stated, tests are tests and cant fully reflect the reality. It would also cost too much time to only do such tests.

 

On 5/6/2020 at 4:36 PM, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

3.we are not sick in a hospital..this is a gaming platform and we are costumers we buy a product we shouldnt have any part in the development ..(if you go to a coffee shop to buy a coffee and they give you your coffee with salt (because you know what we are testing a new salty coffee flavor)would you like it?

So you bought a game advertised as "development stopped"? Well, I didnt. You example is lagging any real argument. To me it sounds that you drank too much coffee with salt. Even if you order 10 cups of coffee and in one of those 1 has 23/24 sugger in it an 1/24 sugger with a grain of salt, this is worth it for the greater good of the game. I would buy into your example if you could name any salty testship from the past 12 month, but you cant.

[cpt_sparrow_jack]

6 hours ago, TobiAssho said:

Never called their balancing brilliant, dont you put words into my mouth which I never said.

i never did that it is my sarcastic opinion.. relax take your pills

 

6 hours ago, TobiAssho said:

I have no issue with anyone saying that strawberry icecream tastes better than chocolate. Even if chocolate is superior imo. Everyone has a different taste and thats fine.

So in my personal taste then test ships dont belong in real server. Is that better?

 

6 hours ago, TobiAssho said:

Which are the unbalanced ships?

unbalanced are also ships that underperform and not only op ships so a team plays wi th disadvantage..

also a team plays  with disanvantage for example when a tester plays to test the survivability of the ship so is standing like siting duck or for mutliple reasons the tester wants to yolo just to test something specific in the ship..

or doesnt play the objective cause for example wants to test the aa of the ship..or  or or or

 

another unbalance is when the ship is already op no mater if they release it in this very version but its still uknown to the average joe...

for example testing ships such as belfast or dds that have radars or great rate of fire or other gimmics(and they know already their advantage so they are positioning acordingly) so  against the clueless dds that were contesting caps killing them insatntly and it can afect so hard the result of the game(and really i dont see here where is the balance testing in real player enviroment.i believe that those same dead dds when the test ship would be released they will act very diferently against it) ...because after release even average joe knows in one way or another that this is a ''bad thing'' to go close even if he doesnt know the specks, and the new released ship doesnt have the advantage anymore of being complitely uknown thing no mater if it is op or up..

6 hours ago, TobiAssho said:

As stated, tests are tests and cant fully reflect the reality. It would also cost too much time to only do such tests.

the only one should be in a hurry to release new ships is WG for the money cashgrab and not you.im not by the way  i prefer development of the game to be correct and smooth not quick and whatever

 

6 hours ago, TobiAssho said:

If you look outside of worships: Corona treatment is not only tested on apes and pigs, its tested also on humans

with their own or their families admition..you forgot that..so your example is not the best either

even the cars you mentioned they are testing them in  empty roads or in the factoty circuits, not directly in trafic before they release them

[SquibSurefire]

It certainly sounds to me like a bunch of the mods and organizers posting in this tread work for WG with the amount of certainty that is being used in their posts.  I wonder if WG know whether they are paying them?  

[TobiAssho]

11 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

So in my personal taste then test ships dont belong in real server. Is that better?

 

unbalanced are also ships that underperform and not only op ships so a team plays wi th disadvantage..

also a team plays  with disanvantage for example when a tester plays to test the survivability of the ship so is standing like siting duck or for mutliple reasons the tester wants to yolo just to test something specific in the ship..

or doesnt play the objective cause for example wants to test the aa of the ship..or  or or or

The advantages of testing on a real server outweight the possible negative impacts by far.

Just to put your personal issue into perspective. There are 5mio accounts on EU. Lets assume that 2% of them play per day, so 100k players (probably more as EU peaks with 30-40k). There are maybe 500 STs, 100 CST, 100 CCs, 100 Privateers, lets round it up to 1000 people with access to testships. Lets assume half of them play daily, so 500 ppl and lets assume they only play testships. 500 out of 100k play testships, thats 0,5%. So 1 out of 200 is a testship, means you will meet a testship every 8,33 games. Big whoop.

From my subjective perspective, 80-90% of the testships only get minor changes, so every 41 games you might encounter a ship that will be changed significantly compared to the release. All this under the assumption, that those ships are gamebreaking bad or op.

 

Testers are supposed to "just play normal". There is no order to rush in and see how long you can stay alive or go to A line and wait for the CV to attack you. If you find a tester abusing the fact that he or she has a testship, report it to WG. Thats not supposed to be.

 

 

11 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

another unbalance is when the ship is already op no mater if they release it in this very version but its still uknown to the average joe...

for example testing ships such as belfast or dds that have radars or great rate of fire or other gimmics ...

ecause after release even average joe knows in one way or another that this is a ''bad thing'' to go close even if he doesnt know the specks, and the new released ship doesnt have the advantage anymore of being complitely uknown thing no mater if it is op or up..

Average Joe can take a look at the devblog and see that a ship has radar, or the cruiser rushing him has torps. If average Joe does not check devblog for this, he will also not check anything when a ship is released, so no difference here. All specs and perks are public info for testships.

 

11 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

the only one should be in a hurry to release new ships is WG for the money cashgrab and not you.im not by the way  i prefer development of the game to be correct and smooth not quick and whatever

I like the speed in which new lines and ship are released. As pointed out earlier it would take 10 times longer to test ships not on public server and in addition the data would not be as reliable. So testing improves quantity and quality of the content WG produces. The game would be less "smooth" if ships were only tested in closed tests.

In addition, I bet you think that server capathity and cash grow on trees. We should all be happy if WG earns enough money, otherwise there would be no WoWs. So it is in our very own interest that they can cheaply and quickly test ships. Do you think Victor Kislyi will step up and pay for the server and development from his own pocket, just because ships is so cool?

 

11 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

with their own or their families admition..you forgot that..so your example is not the best either

My example shows the need of tests under real condition.

 

11 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

even the cars you mentioned they are testing them in  empty roads or in the factoty circuits, not directly in trafic before they release them

You are living in a different reality. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32750810

2015:

This summer some of the self-driving cars will be tested on the roads around Mountain View, California, where the search giant is based.

Before now, the small vehicles have only driven on test tracks and have not mixed with regular traffic.

Google has tested autonomous vehicles on public roads but all of them have been heavily modified Lexus SUVs.

 

Nobody driving in Mountain View got asked if they want to share the road with google cars. Government decided that the need to test new technology outweights the risk they bring. Just as it is in warships: Its better for everyone that new ships are tested on the real server.

 

[cpt_sparrow_jack]

On 5/7/2020 at 10:39 PM, TobiAssho said:

most of those testships were brokenly op.

Give me any example from the past 12 month.

and another one 

 

 

[TobiAssho]

On 5/7/2020 at 2:12 PM, TobiAssho said:

There were a few very strong shipslike Slava but most ships only were changed a little before they went

 

10 hours ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

and another one

"Another" means more than one ;)

Slava/Pobeda is the only ship I can remember (and I mentioned it) in the past year (and gz for digging so deep, must have taken you quite some time) which was considered too strong in testing and got nerfed a lot and ultimately not released. I think we tested it for something like 2 weeks in that state before it got changed, so a very brief period where this ship was in the game. Guns were definetly too strong and to accurate for a BB. If I remember correctly, winrate overall was not that much out of line, becaus the tanking ability and maneuverbility was mediocre at best. For all the ships tested in the past year having 1 out of line is tolerateable.

You should be very thankful to the test on the real server to prevent this ship to enter the game. Thats what testing is for.