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

More details on changes of Unique Upgrades

50 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG]
WG Staff, Administrator, Community, WG Team
4,579 posts
3,888 battles

Hi,

 

We would like to answer some of your questions about the future Uniques Upgrades changes and we'd like to share more details and insight about how we approached Unique Upgrade balancing.

 

Read more.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 3
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,612 posts
3,235 battles

Full text 

0.9.5, MORE DETAILS ON CHANGES OF UNIQUE UPGRADES

Commanders!

Following the reveal of the Unique Upgrades balance changes, we noticed quite a lot of questions and concerns about the reasoning behind the buffs and nerfs announced. There was some confusion around various of the changes and some of you found it hard to justify them, as they seemingly contradicted a pre-existing perception of particular ships and upgrades.

We appreciate your involvement in this interesting topic, and we'd like to share more details and insight about how we approached UU balancing. Hopefully it will give you more context for the planned changes. The information below is up-to-date and current. Depending on further tests and changes, our approach may still be altered. 

 

First of all, let's define what a Unique Upgrade (UU) should and should not do by as per the current design:

  • It should create additional variety in how players can build their ship by providing an alternative option to the existing upgrades.
  • It should either emphasize a particular playstyle on the ship or, alternatively, suggest a new way to play it.
  • It should not lower the overall ship's combat efficiency, but change the way it manifests.
  • It should not overshadow other upgrades in the same slot, making the ship overpowered, and the upgrade itself mandatory for optimal performance.
  • It should not be the way used to buff or nerf the a ship itself, as for this purpose the ship itself should be adjusted, not its UU.

From this point of view, when balancing the upgrades we decided to concentrate on the following stats, looking at our active players who own the UU for the respective ship:

  • Popularity: what's the share of battles on the ship that were played with the UU? It's a pretty simple metric, e.g. "X HINDENBURG's UU popularity is 54.5%" means that 54.5% of battles were played with the UU equipped (that's the real numbers, by the way, as are all the numbers in this article). 
  • Winrate difference between the players using and not using UU, and ships having it equipped or not: how (and how much) does the upgrade influence player winrate on the ship? Besides pure ship winrate comparisons, we should also consider how people play with UU and how well they play in general.
    • In most cases, fitting a UU with a purpose may "buff" the results, because that particular playstyle fits these particular players (i.e. some people are very effective playing X MINOTAUR with radar or X DES MOINES with spotter plane, which does not necessarily mean that these configurations are optimal or even overpowered).
      • Player winrate is more important than the winrate of the ship. An experienced player can play any ship effectively, but the ship's winrate is calculated based on all players in the sample. That's why the difference in winrate may be below zero.

With that in mind, we calculate WR difference for UU as:

  1. (WR difference between UU equipped ships and those without it) minus (WR difference between players using UU and not using UU) gives us our actual UU WR difference
  2. Because of the nuances above, as well as the facts that player account WR has more impact on battle performance than the WR on a particular ship, we consider the results between 0% and +2% acceptable. For example:
    1. X DES MOINES: ships WR difference (6,7%) - Players WR difference (3,9%) = +2,8% difference. Above the acceptable 2%, which means the upgrade is too strong.
    2. X SHIMAKAZE: ships WR difference (-0,1%) - Players WR difference (-0.1%) = 0% difference. Borderline, but acceptable.
    3. X GEARING: ships WR difference (1,5%) - Players WR difference (0,3%) = +1,2% difference. Fully acceptable. 

We've set the following targets:

  • UU's popularity should not be significantly above 65% - if it is, that's a sign that the UU is becoming a no-brainer instead of being an alternative. 
  • UU's popularity should not be significantly lower than 40% - if it is, that's a sign that the UU doesn't offer an interesting enough alternative to the existing upgrades.
  • The UU should not make the relative WR worse (in this case it becomes a downgrade, not a sidegrade).
  • The target value WR is from 0% up to +2%, as was explained above.
  • Each UU case should be reviewed individually before the suggestion of a final version.

These values are not strict and serve as indicators - the decision to more precisely check the peformance of UU is based on them. Besides these values we also consider feedback and expert review. 

From this point of view, we could look at several examples in depth:

X GROSSER KURFÜRS (56,88% popularity, +2,0 WR).

 
Changes to UU

Some of you were upset by the nerf, and we appreciate these feelings. But unfortunately the UU for this ship was a bit too effective and also pretty popular. The 5% nerf to main battery reload time bonus (from 15 to 10) may seem scary on paper, but comparing to the most popular "Main Battery mod.3" the UU actually provides:

  • Only -2% main battery reload speed
  • -8% worse main gun range
  • +15% secondary armament reload speed
  • +13% turret traverse speed

For the safer playstyles, secondary armament DPM and turret traverse speed do not matter that much, but for aggressive and risky pushes the bonus is very considerable - and the UU in this case suggests exactly that, with a manageable trade-off. 

X RÉPUBLIQUE  (22,53% popularity, +0,2 WR).

 
Changes to UU

There were some questions about this UU as a whole and claims that nerfing the range in favor of main battery DPM on this ship makes no sense, and that the turret traverse was not a problem in the first place. It's a good case to explain the "alternative playstyle" approach. X RÉPUBLIQUE is a very potent medium and long range battleship, but her UU suggests a riskier playstyle. If you're going to play it safe, sure, it was, and still is better to go with the regular upgrades of your choice. But if you find yourself in close quarter combat more often than not, which is a valid way to play too, this UU provides you the buffs specifically for that and the turret traverse starts to matter more and more. As we can see from the popularity, it's relatively small, but the performance is already pretty good. Hence, we're trying to make the suggested playstyle more pronounced instead of a straight flat buff. 

X MONTANA (66,85% popularity, +1,1 WR)

 
Changes to UU

In the case of X MONTANA, it is important to distinguish the ship from her UU. As we've said previously describing the concept, UU should not be too powerful and should not overshadow other upgrades in the slot. Thus the changes are directed at lowering the popularity of UU and not on the ship.

X KHABAROVSK (62,05% popularity, +2,5 WR)

 
Changes to UU

New UU lowers the WR difference and offers a playstyle when survivability is provided not by the number of consumables, but by fighting at long ranges.

X SHIMAKAZE (23,56% popularity, +0 WR)

 
Changes to UU

Despite having an acceptable WR difference, the UU has rather low popularity. This is related to the fact that this UU is mostly effective with 20-km torpedoes and UU fits its purpose for those, who like long-ranged torpedo attacks.

X WORCESTER (24,01% popularity, -2,5 WR)

 
Changes to UU

UU had rather weak positive effects and was in slot 5, competing with concealment and Radar duration upgrades. This caused low popularity and we've decided to keep the concept for this UU (strengthening X WORCESTER as a support ship), but empower it a bit and make it an alternative to firepower upgrades instead of concealment.

X YUEYANG (26,53% popularity, -1,1 WR)

 
Changes to UU

UU was unpopular due to the large number of negative effects: it lowered her competitiveness in comparison to other upgrades and the ship's WR. The updated UU offers more aggressive gameplay with an emphasis on consumables and main caliber instead of concealment upgrade, which is suited for more cautious gameplay.

Since our last announcement we've changed two UUs:

X DES MOINES (65,76% popularity, +2,8 WR)

UU had excessive efficiency and high popularity. Initially, we thought that this playstyle's efficiency would be lowered by the announced changes, however, testing showed that it won't. That's why we've decided to implement different changes:

  • Reduced the bonus to engine power. Now, with the unique upgrade and the “Propulsion Modification 1” upgrade, it’ll take the cruiser 21% more time to reach maximum forward speed, and it’ll take three times more time to reach maximum backward speed. The ship will still be gaining speed faster with these two upgrades compared to having just one of them. At the same time, the time it takes the ship to reach 1/2 and 3/4 of her speed remains almost the same.
  • Removed a penalty on the action time of Surveillance Radar. This penalty didn’t affect the use and effectiveness of the upgrade.

Players will now choose between this unique upgrade and an upgrade that increases firepower.

X HENRI IV (62,01% popularity, 0,7 WR)

The upgrade had high popularity, which was the target of the changes. However, the WR is acceptable. Besides that, we've considered your feedback and decided not to implement changes to the UU at the current time and see what the effect of the changes for X HENRI IV in Update 0.9.5 will be. For now, UU will keep its parameters:

  • -12% main caliber guns reload time
  • +8% main caliber gins ,aximum firing range
  • +10% detectabilty.

We didn't change UU of several ships because their metrics are fine:

  • X GEARING (63,59% popularity, +1,2 WR)
  • X CONQUEROR (64,29% popularity, +0,3 WR)
  • X HINDENBURG (52,51% popularity, +1,1 WR)

We see the UUs of X YAMATO, X MOSKVA, X ZAŌ, X MINOTAUR, X Z-52, and X GROZOVOI as candidates for future changes and will share info about them, UUs for CVs, and for ships which don't yet have them, in the near future.

Hopefully, we were able to give you more context to understand the changes to Unique Upgrades.  Of course we will keep looking at their performance and how the changes will influence it in the following updates. If something does not work, we can always make further tweaks to reach the optimal performance, while keeping each unique upgrade as an interesting and valid choice.

Good luck and fair seas!

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAF]
[FAF]
Players
361 posts
16,983 battles
24 minutes ago, wot_2016_gunner said:

Full text 

0.9.5, MORE DETAILS ON CHANGES OF UNIQUE UPGRADES

Commanders!

Following the reveal of the Unique Upgrades balance changes, we noticed quite a lot of questions and concerns about the reasoning behind the buffs and nerfs announced. There was some confusion around various of the changes and some of you found it hard to justify them, as they seemingly contradicted a pre-existing perception of particular ships and upgrades.

We appreciate your involvement in this interesting topic, and we'd like to share more details and insight about how we approached UU balancing. Hopefully it will give you more context for the planned changes. The information below is up-to-date and current. Depending on further tests and changes, our approach may still be altered. 

 

First of all, let's define what a Unique Upgrade (UU) should and should not do by as per the current design:

  • It should create additional variety in how players can build their ship by providing an alternative option to the existing upgrades.
  • It should either emphasize a particular playstyle on the ship or, alternatively, suggest a new way to play it.
  • It should not lower the overall ship's combat efficiency, but change the way it manifests.
  • It should not overshadow other upgrades in the same slot, making the ship overpowered, and the upgrade itself mandatory for optimal performance.
  • It should not be the way used to buff or nerf the a ship itself, as for this purpose the ship itself should be adjusted, not its UU.

From this point of view, when balancing the upgrades we decided to concentrate on the following stats, looking at our active players who own the UU for the respective ship:

  • Popularity: what's the share of battles on the ship that were played with the UU? It's a pretty simple metric, e.g. "X HINDENBURG's UU popularity is 54.5%" means that 54.5% of battles were played with the UU equipped (that's the real numbers, by the way, as are all the numbers in this article). 
  • Winrate difference between the players using and not using UU, and ships having it equipped or not: how (and how much) does the upgrade influence player winrate on the ship? Besides pure ship winrate comparisons, we should also consider how people play with UU and how well they play in general.
    • In most cases, fitting a UU with a purpose may "buff" the results, because that particular playstyle fits these particular players (i.e. some people are very effective playing X MINOTAUR with radar or X DES MOINES with spotter plane, which does not necessarily mean that these configurations are optimal or even overpowered).
      • Player winrate is more important than the winrate of the ship. An experienced player can play any ship effectively, but the ship's winrate is calculated based on all players in the sample. That's why the difference in winrate may be below zero.

With that in mind, we calculate WR difference for UU as:

  1. (WR difference between UU equipped ships and those without it) minus (WR difference between players using UU and not using UU) gives us our actual UU WR difference
  2. Because of the nuances above, as well as the facts that player account WR has more impact on battle performance than the WR on a particular ship, we consider the results between 0% and +2% acceptable. For example:
    1. X DES MOINES: ships WR difference (6,7%) - Players WR difference (3,9%) = +2,8% difference. Above the acceptable 2%, which means the upgrade is too strong.
    2. X SHIMAKAZE: ships WR difference (-0,1%) - Players WR difference (-0.1%) = 0% difference. Borderline, but acceptable.
    3. X GEARING: ships WR difference (1,5%) - Players WR difference (0,3%) = +1,2% difference. Fully acceptable. 

We've set the following targets:

  • UU's popularity should not be significantly above 65% - if it is, that's a sign that the UU is becoming a no-brainer instead of being an alternative. 
  • UU's popularity should not be significantly lower than 40% - if it is, that's a sign that the UU doesn't offer an interesting enough alternative to the existing upgrades.
  • The UU should not make the relative WR worse (in this case it becomes a downgrade, not a sidegrade).
  • The target value WR is from 0% up to +2%, as was explained above.
  • Each UU case should be reviewed individually before the suggestion of a final version.

These values are not strict and serve as indicators - the decision to more precisely check the peformance of UU is based on them. Besides these values we also consider feedback and expert review. 

From this point of view, we could look at several examples in depth:

X GROSSER KURFÜRS (56,88% popularity, +2,0 WR).

 
Changes to UU

Some of you were upset by the nerf, and we appreciate these feelings. But unfortunately the UU for this ship was a bit too effective and also pretty popular. The 5% nerf to main battery reload time bonus (from 15 to 10) may seem scary on paper, but comparing to the most popular "Main Battery mod.3" the UU actually provides:

  • Only -2% main battery reload speed
  • -8% worse main gun range
  • +15% secondary armament reload speed
  • +13% turret traverse speed

For the safer playstyles, secondary armament DPM and turret traverse speed do not matter that much, but for aggressive and risky pushes the bonus is very considerable - and the UU in this case suggests exactly that, with a manageable trade-off. 

X RÉPUBLIQUE  (22,53% popularity, +0,2 WR).

 
Changes to UU

There were some questions about this UU as a whole and claims that nerfing the range in favor of main battery DPM on this ship makes no sense, and that the turret traverse was not a problem in the first place. It's a good case to explain the "alternative playstyle" approach. X RÉPUBLIQUE is a very potent medium and long range battleship, but her UU suggests a riskier playstyle. If you're going to play it safe, sure, it was, and still is better to go with the regular upgrades of your choice. But if you find yourself in close quarter combat more often than not, which is a valid way to play too, this UU provides you the buffs specifically for that and the turret traverse starts to matter more and more. As we can see from the popularity, it's relatively small, but the performance is already pretty good. Hence, we're trying to make the suggested playstyle more pronounced instead of a straight flat buff. 

X MONTANA (66,85% popularity, +1,1 WR)

 
Changes to UU

In the case of X MONTANA, it is important to distinguish the ship from her UU. As we've said previously describing the concept, UU should not be too powerful and should not overshadow other upgrades in the slot. Thus the changes are directed at lowering the popularity of UU and not on the ship.

X KHABAROVSK (62,05% popularity, +2,5 WR)

 
Changes to UU

New UU lowers the WR difference and offers a playstyle when survivability is provided not by the number of consumables, but by fighting at long ranges.

X SHIMAKAZE (23,56% popularity, +0 WR)

 
Changes to UU

Despite having an acceptable WR difference, the UU has rather low popularity. This is related to the fact that this UU is mostly effective with 20-km torpedoes and UU fits its purpose for those, who like long-ranged torpedo attacks.

X WORCESTER (24,01% popularity, -2,5 WR)

 
Changes to UU

UU had rather weak positive effects and was in slot 5, competing with concealment and Radar duration upgrades. This caused low popularity and we've decided to keep the concept for this UU (strengthening X WORCESTER as a support ship), but empower it a bit and make it an alternative to firepower upgrades instead of concealment.

X YUEYANG (26,53% popularity, -1,1 WR)

 
Changes to UU

UU was unpopular due to the large number of negative effects: it lowered her competitiveness in comparison to other upgrades and the ship's WR. The updated UU offers more aggressive gameplay with an emphasis on consumables and main caliber instead of concealment upgrade, which is suited for more cautious gameplay.

Since our last announcement we've changed two UUs:

X DES MOINES (65,76% popularity, +2,8 WR)

UU had excessive efficiency and high popularity. Initially, we thought that this playstyle's efficiency would be lowered by the announced changes, however, testing showed that it won't. That's why we've decided to implement different changes:

  • Reduced the bonus to engine power. Now, with the unique upgrade and the “Propulsion Modification 1” upgrade, it’ll take the cruiser 21% more time to reach maximum forward speed, and it’ll take three times more time to reach maximum backward speed. The ship will still be gaining speed faster with these two upgrades compared to having just one of them. At the same time, the time it takes the ship to reach 1/2 and 3/4 of her speed remains almost the same.
  • Removed a penalty on the action time of Surveillance Radar. This penalty didn’t affect the use and effectiveness of the upgrade.

Players will now choose between this unique upgrade and an upgrade that increases firepower.

X HENRI IV (62,01% popularity, 0,7 WR)

The upgrade had high popularity, which was the target of the changes. However, the WR is acceptable. Besides that, we've considered your feedback and decided not to implement changes to the UU at the current time and see what the effect of the changes for X HENRI IV in Update 0.9.5 will be. For now, UU will keep its parameters:

  • -12% main caliber guns reload time
  • +8% main caliber gins ,aximum firing range
  • +10% detectabilty.

We didn't change UU of several ships because their metrics are fine:

  • X GEARING (63,59% popularity, +1,2 WR)
  • X CONQUEROR (64,29% popularity, +0,3 WR)
  • X HINDENBURG (52,51% popularity, +1,1 WR)

We see the UUs of X YAMATO, X MOSKVA, X ZAŌ, X MINOTAUR, X Z-52, and X GROZOVOI as candidates for future changes and will share info about them, UUs for CVs, and for ships which don't yet have them, in the near future.

Hopefully, we were able to give you more context to understand the changes to Unique Upgrades.  Of course we will keep looking at their performance and how the changes will influence it in the following updates. If something does not work, we can always make further tweaks to reach the optimal performance, while keeping each unique upgrade as an interesting and valid choice.

Good luck and fair seas!

Again i can only shake at @WarGaming  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
2,615 posts
11,677 battles

Is Des Moines unique upgrade any better than the simple propulsion mod now?

 

I would really like to know how Wargaming worked out the winrates with and without upgrades. 

After a long grind to get a unique upgrade I would expect a player would bet better with a ship.

How have Wargaming balanced that out?

 

Hindenburg legendary might be a good way of seeing this in action. Is it really superior to concealment? It's really hard to imagine that.

 

I do hope no one is out there buying these upgrades in the research bureau not knowing about the coming changes...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,872 posts
27,248 battles
1 hour ago, gopher31 said:

Is Des Moines unique upgrade any better than the simple propulsion mod now?

 

I would really like to know how Wargaming worked out the winrates with and without upgrades. 

After a long grind to get a unique upgrade I would expect a player would bet better with a ship.

How have Wargaming balanced that out?

 

Hindenburg legendary might be a good way of seeing this in action. Is it really superior to concealment? It's really hard to imagine that.

 

I do hope no one is out there buying these upgrades in the research bureau not knowing about the coming changes...

 

Are you questioning data from the Holy spreadsheet? WG would like to suggest you a long vacation in the Siberia region, in one the top notch recreation camps there, which they usually call "Gulag". WG could even arrange a free transport to one of those camp.   

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
9,900 posts
9,003 battles

Can only

image.png.c9affef72b5f4c62e86ac570bdef654c.png

to that.

 

WG knows their playerbase isnt the smartest (they continously throw it into our faces "CVs cant manage consumables"). Yet when looking at Hindenburg players, ofc they are so smart, they use the LM. Which is utter garbage ofc, but they dont understand it. And Hindenburg players include many germans, who play ships because they are german, which often makes them below average players to begin with.

 

9 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

Hindenburg legendary might be a good way of seeing this in action. Is it really superior to concealment? It's really hard to imagine that.

 

See above. Like the average Hindenburg player understands that this LM is garbage. They see -40% fire duration and start drooling, because half of them are BBabies!

You literally cant burn to death in a Cruiser in a sense, where you have taken so much firedamage. IF that happens: You are a 30% player, who dies 10 times over to BBs. Imagine getting farmed by a DD and burning to death.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,721 posts
13,880 battles

In the case of Republique, even if you want to go for this ''alternative playstyle'' approach this upgrade remains questionable. 

 

Your range is basically gutted from 26.1 to 19.8 IIRC for a 6% reload buff, which assuming you were using Main Battery Mod. 3 already, translates to about 1 second faster reload over the latter. It's just not worth giving up that much range for such a small reload difference, and on a squishy platform. Range gives you options.

 

Without this mod, you can STILL duke it out just fine at close range, WHILE having the ability to lay down the hurt or apply pressure at long range, for example. Why would you give that up for ~1s better Reload?

 

And the removal of the turret traverse penalty is still not valuable enough to make this UU worth mounting, considering Republique turret traverse is still excellent even with MBM3(33.6 degrees per sec, albeit with Jean-Jaques Honore).

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CKBK]
Players
319 posts
17,224 battles

Dm isn't overpowered, balancing  ships by popularity will make those ships bad, yamato is next? Just make t10 ships unplayable.  I wonder how "balanced" the uu for the cvs will actually be, my guess it won't be...

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CKBK]
Players
26 posts
30,724 battles

Spreadsheet, how about playing the game... It's so inaccurate info too, and now if you put effort in to grinding this unique upgrade , isn't it suppose to be an upgrade???  Regrind a line, use 150mill credits a week of gaming for what exactly? a useless option for the ship ? 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,721 posts
13,880 battles
5 minutes ago, Captaindanz said:

Dm isn't overpowered, balancing  ships by popularity will make those ships bad, yamato is next?

 

RIP Yamato Legendary 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CKBK]
Players
319 posts
17,224 battles
26 minutes ago, Miragetank90 said:

 

RIP Yamato Legendary 

Deleting this game might seem like a good idea.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOKOS]
Players
39 posts
7,803 battles

So, in WG opinion, for a UU to be viable it must not be widely used by players and not provide any kind of advantage over the normal upgrades.

I mean, at that point you might as well go ahead and remove them completely since they are pretty pointless.

 

Zao and Moskva UUs are next on the chopping block and those upgrades are one of the only things keeping those cruisers relevant(and dare i say somewhat still fun to play) in the current meta so i can only imagine how much they will be gutted.

At least i hope they will offer a free dismounting period since there's no reason to use DM module anymore.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-R-N]
Players
92 posts
32,065 battles

I think in the six years I have been following development blogs in WoW this is by far the best, most comprehensive and clear statement I have seen by devs on game balances. The explanation on the WR analysis is top notch, especially since it also covers how it is not about crude WR but about WR difference duly adjusted for player strength that determines buff or nerf (as well as need to make UU a 50-50% choice). I cannot fault the logic, and numbers don't lie, especially sine they take into account player differences. Which brings the question about the two elephants in the room: if there are such intelligent people in WG why on earth have we been landed with the CV game play and, to add insult to injury, the upcoming total disaster of submarines which will push aside the discussion on the features of any ship of any line as relatively super-minor irrelevancies? With such evident talent working on fine balance why such largess (to put it politely) on the far more important aspects of the strategic direction of the game play?     

 

Going back to the positives of this post (I do financial modelling by profession so I am salivating when faced with clear cut rational thinking), I now wonder if the YY nerfs which we all objected to when they first appeared and which I assumed were only based on crude WR (that is how it was presented at the time) had a finer analysis that was not fully explained. It would be reassuring to know that buffs and nerfs require more than crude (and statistically wrong) analysis of crude WR. YY had a high WR because good players preferred it and brought it often in division so WR in its own right was an inappropriate reason to nerf it - so could it be that there was more analysis done and that the nerf was justified? 

 

None of this should detract from Flamu's penetrating commentary, including with regards to UU, but I am prepared to accept WG's analysis as presented and reluctantly also accept that my beloved DM with UU will no longer be the same - the numbers are clear, the rationale is clear, WG are doing the right thing (for once). I am in trepidation about what is to happen to the Yamato ... 

 

WG, well done for the transparent and to the point approach. More of these please: you may find that articulating game rationale in such clear terms may dissuade you from the larger changes over the horizon which, left unchecked, are about to crash the game head on.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-R-N]
Players
92 posts
32,065 battles
48 minutes ago, Zenryos said:

So, in WG opinion, for a UU to be viable it must not be widely used by players and not provide any kind of advantage over the normal upgrades.

I mean, at that point you might as well go ahead and remove them completely since they are pretty pointless.

 

Zao and Moskva UUs are next on the chopping block and those upgrades are one of the only things keeping those cruisers relevant(and dare i say somewhat still fun to play) in the current meta so i can only imagine how much they will be gutted.

At least i hope they will offer a free dismounting period since there no reason to use DM module anymore.

 

I think WG has been very clear from the outset (almost two years ago or so) that UU are side changes, not buffs, offering alternative play styles; and on this occasion they clearly stated as well that the objective is to keep this as an alternative of equal popularity; they did not say it should not be popular, they said it should to be too popular, which makes perfect sense, if you rad carefully what they mean by that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
2,615 posts
11,677 battles

Who would pay 19,200 research points for these when most current owners want to get rid of them?

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOKOS]
Players
39 posts
7,803 battles
18 minutes ago, ATH67 said:

I think WG has been very clear from the outset (almost two years ago or so) that UU are side changes, not buffs, offering alternative play styles; and on this occasion they clearly stated as well that the objective is to keep this as an alternative of equal popularity; they did not say it should not be popular, they said it should to be too popular, which makes perfect sense, if you rad carefully what they mean by that.  

I understood perfectly what they meant but equating popularity with advantage is a pretty big fallacy, a lot of people use the UUs because they find the play style they offer more fun.

Plus some changes contradicts what is written in the blogpost.

 

Case in point is the Kurfurst UU (56,88% popularity and +2% WR):

the module provides a secondary focused play style that many found interesting and both popularity and WR are within the parameters that WG said themselves that are acceptable and yet it was nerfed anyway.

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-R-N]
Players
92 posts
32,065 battles
13 minutes ago, Zenryos said:

I understood perfectly what they meant but equating popularity with advantage is a pretty big fallacy, a lot of people use the UUs because they find the play style they offer more fun.

Plus some changes contradicts what is written in the blogpost.

 

Case in point is the Kurfurst UU (56,88% popularity and +2% WR):

the module provides a secondary focused play style that many found interesting and both popularity and WR are within the parameters that WG said themselves that are acceptable and yet it was nerfed anyway.

 

They did not equate popularity with advantage at all in any way whatsoever. They were extremely clear of their rationale: advantage was defined as excessive performance, adjusted for player strength, so that is 100% correct. Popularity was something totally different: they want to balance ships so that UU do not end up causing all players choosing the new play-style and totally abandoning the old, which is a perfectly fair point as well since the objective is to offer alternative play style, rather than substitute one play style for another. 

 

Their rationale has no faults o nthis. I too would like to keep the DM OP with the UU but that is ultimately not good for the game. If we moan for everything they say we will have no credibility when it comes to things we genuinely ought to object about (and they are coming our way for sure...) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PONYS]
Players
96 posts
11,579 battles

Dear Wargaming Team,

I am yet again extremely disappointed. Why on earth don't you play your own game like any decent game developer. To make the balancing based on a statistic value, which is heavily dependent on your (non elo based) RNG matchmaker, is more than questionable.
Why don't you just roll the dice? From 1-4 there is a nerve, at 5 it stays the same and at 6 there will be a buff.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOKOS]
Players
39 posts
7,803 battles
3 minutes ago, ATH67 said:

They did not equate popularity with advantage at all in any way whatsoever. They were extremely clear of their rationale: advantage was defined as excessive performance, adjusted for player strength, so that is 100% correct. Popularity was something totally different: they want to balance ships so that UU do not end up causing all players choosing the new play-style and totally abandoning the old, which is a perfectly fair point as well since the objective is to offer alternative play style, rather than substitute one play style for another. 

 

Their rationale has no faults o nthis. I too would like to keep the DM OP with the UU but that is ultimately not good for the game. If we moan for everything they say we will have no credibility when it comes to things we genuinely ought to object about (and they are coming our way for sure...) 

I have to disagree to your whole argument, balancing by popularity is not the right way to do things.

Let's put aside the DM and take a look at the Montana for example: 66,85% and +1.1 WR.

As you can see the module is popular but it barely affects WR, what does this tells you?

 It's simple: in the current meta people just enjoy the alternative play style more than the standard one.

 

Look, the game has been out for years and many of these older ships have been powercrept pretty hard and some are barely played anymore, if WG doesn't want to buff them to make them relevant in the current meta again they should at least leave the UUs that make them enjoyable to some players alone.

Getting all hot and bothered by the numbers on the spreadsheet that only WG can see it's fine and whatever if that's what you are into but you have to remember that ultimately the point of the game is to have fun.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-R-N]
Players
92 posts
32,065 battles
1 hour ago, Zenryos said:

I have to disagree to your whole argument, balancing by popularity is not the right way to do things.

Let's put aside the DM and take a look at the Montana for example: 66,85% and +1.1 WR.

As you can see the module is popular but it barely affects WR, what does this tells you?

 It's simple: in the current meta people just enjoy the alternative play style more than the standard one.

 

Look, the game has been out for years and many of these older ships have been powercrept pretty hard and some are barely played anymore, if WG doesn't want to buff them to make them relevant in the current meta again they should at least leave the UUs that make them enjoyable to some players alone.

Getting all hot and bothered by the numbers on the spreadsheet that only WG can see it's fine and whatever if that's what you are into but you have to remember that ultimately the point of the game is to have fun.

I think you misunderstood what wargaming have done here. 

 

Balancing has nothing to do with popularity. It is only to do with the objective strengths as these have been statistically determined. Their method of defining these appears to me to be first class and I don't see you raising any objections.

 

Where the ship is underpowered they buff it, so there is no problem there either.  

 

What they do and it is perfectly legit, is to say that they don't want to replace one playstyle with another - even if both are balanced.  What they want to achieve is to have alternative and competing ships play-styles that are (i) BOTH balanced in terms of strengths AND (ii) Equally POPULAR, so that the old playstyle is not gone forever. I respect this and I cant for the life of me what your problem is.

 

If anything I wholeheartedly commend them: it would hahve been easily tempting to go all out with the new upgrades and turn then into power creep that everyone would like: the ships and upgrades would become popular and then everyone would end up paying FRee Xp (or use doubloons) to get there. They did not do that, against their commercial interests. AND WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOKOS]
Players
39 posts
7,803 battles
30 minutes ago, ATH67 said:

Balancing has nothing to do with popularity.

"UU's popularity should not be significantly above 65%"

Seems to me that WG doesn't agree with you and popularity is absolutely a balancing factor for them.

 

30 minutes ago, ATH67 said:

What they do and it is perfectly legit, is to say that they don't want to replace one playstyle with another - even if both are balanced.  What they want to achieve is to have alternative and competing ships play-styles that are (i) BOTH balanced in terms of strengths AND (ii) Equally POPULAR, so that the old playstyle is not gone forever. I respect this and I cant for the life of me what your problem is.

Achieving balance is impossible with how WG does things, because there will always be a configuration that is the most effective or simply preferred in a given meta.

As soon said configuration becomes too popular for whatever reason(too effective or simply because it's more fun) it will get nerfed and once nobody uses it anymore it will get forgotten or buffed again starting the whole balancing cycle anew.

 

30 minutes ago, ATH67 said:

If anything I wholeheartedly commend them: it would hahve been easily tempting to go all out with the new upgrades and turn then into power creep that everyone would like: the ships and upgrades would become popular and then everyone would end up paying FRee Xp (or use doubloons) to get there. They did not do that, against their commercial interests. AND WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?  

I don't have a problem with that but let's be objective here, besides DM no other UU can be even remotely considered overpowered and many of these seem like changes just for the sake of changes.

 

If you want to know what my problem is it's simple, the game is already a complete mess filled with bugs, powercreep and scummy monetization practices so watching WG wasting resources in pointless and counter-productive things instead of fixing the game is simply irritating. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAF]
[FAF]
Players
361 posts
16,983 battles
3 hours ago, ATH67 said:

They did not equate popularity with advantage at all in any way whatsoever. They were extremely clear of their rationale: advantage was defined as excessive performance, adjusted for player strength, so that is 100% correct. Popularity was something totally different: they want to balance ships so that UU do not end up causing all players choosing the new play-style and totally abandoning the old, which is a perfectly fair point as well since the objective is to offer alternative play style, rather than substitute one play style for another. 

 

Their rationale has no faults o nthis. I too would like to keep the DM OP with the UU but that is ultimately not good for the game. If we moan for everything they say we will have no credibility when it comes to things we genuinely ought to object about (and they are coming our way for sure...) 

With the DM you have to trade your gunrange how can that be OP ?? And againg this WGs way to f... the playerbase up again as thay have done serveral times before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
1,619 posts
3,585 battles

WG, can you please explain to me HOW you factor in meta changes in the UU evaluation ? In the case of the Khabarovsk, the addition of the Ikea DDs with their fast torps and the addition of the French DDs that can do burst damage from up close with excellent penetration, not to mention Venezia and Stalingrad has made that UU a must have in order to survive without having to hide behind island.

 

So the popularity is understandable and WR difference as well. Try playing the Khaba with the limited range it can get with only AFT is a chore and outright impossible when you get Venezias or Stalins in the game. You can basically abandon that flank. People are used to shooting Klebers now that are both faster and more agile, so Khaba is no longer any problem (ok mayby only to USN cruisers). You need distance in order to survive.

 

And now you are nerfing the UU to make it unusable in open water gunboating as you heal less and can speed boost less (and switching to smoke won't help you as you have smaller smokes now).

 

The whole concept of the ship is wrong. And now you are nerfing the best option the ship had to stay relevant ... GJ as usual.

 

EDIT: TBH I specced out of the UU in favor of rudder shift. Looks like it was a good choice. The next step will be to buy the Tashkent again and forget about Khaba completely.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
4,506 posts
15,942 battles
9 hours ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

WG, can you please explain to me HOW you factor in meta changes in the UU evaluation ? In the case of the Khabarovsk, the addition of the Ikea DDs with their fast torps and the addition of the French DDs that can do burst damage from up close with excellent penetration, not to mention Venezia and Stalingrad has made that UU a must have in order to survive without having to hide behind island.

 

So the popularity is understandable and WR difference as well. Try playing the Khaba with the limited range it can get with only AFT is a chore and outright impossible when you get Venezias or Stalins in the game. You can basically abandon that flank. People are used to shooting Klebers now that are both faster and more agile, so Khaba is no longer any problem (ok mayby only to USN cruisers). You need distance in order to survive.

 

And now you are nerfing the UU to make it unusable in open water gunboating as you heal less and can speed boost less (and switching to smoke won't help you as you have smaller smokes now).

 

The whole concept of the ship is wrong. And now you are nerfing the best option the ship had to stay relevant ... GJ as usual.

 

EDIT: TBH I specced out of the UU in favor of rudder shift. Looks like it was a good choice. The next step will be to buy the Tashkent again and forget about Khaba completely.

Although, it's the right call. If you need the UU to make the ship work and be viable, there's a fundamental issue with both the ship and UU, unless it's you. If this makes the ship irrelevant, they'll have to buff the ship itself. The UU should never be the best option for a ship to stay relevant.

 

It's reasonable to finally have a second look at the UUs.

 

@Tanatoy Have you been looking at the popularity of the UUs in different brackets of players in terms of WR? If all players above 60% WR decides the UU is bad and don't use it, it's questionable if the WR difference for the UU is as relevant. The Hindenburg UU would be an interesting example.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
1,619 posts
3,585 battles
1 hour ago, loppantorkel said:

Although, it's the right call. If you need the UU to make the ship work and be viable, there's a fundamental issue with both the ship and UU, unless it's you. If this makes the ship irrelevant, they'll have to buff the ship itself. The UU should never be the best option for a ship to stay relevant.

 

It's reasonable to finally have a second look at the UUs.

 

@Tanatoy Have you been looking at the popularity of the UUs in different brackets of players in terms of WR? If all players above 60% WR decides the UU is bad and don't use it, it's questionable if the WR difference for the UU is as relevant. The Hindenburg UU would be an interesting example.

I am not disputing the UU review. I am disputing the simple popularity measure as it can be misleading to a large extent in situations that I have described with the Khabarovsk example. Khaba and Grozovoi are at the tail of used ships, outclassed even by Somers and that's a steel ship.

 

So nerfing the UU in that case with such a low tech tree ship popularity is a step in the wrong direction and it is clearly visible.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×