WG, do you want to know what's wrong with your game?

[HassenderZerhacker]

Played 3 battles today.

Ships of a certain unmentionable type make up 4% of the queue.

I get 100% battles with said ships in them.

Just fix the problem.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

2 minutes ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

Played 3 battles today.

Ships of a certain unmentionable type make up 4% of the queue.

I get 100% battles with said ships in them.

Just fix the problem.

weren't you supposed to quit the game? 

I mean you announced you are quitting 2 times already. 

[HassenderZerhacker]

2 minutes ago, Zuihou_Kai said:

weren't you supposed to quit the game? 

I mean you announced you are quitting 2 times already. 

yes... quitting again now... for some time.

I warned every observant reader that I might *gasp* return for playing a couple of battles now and then.

BTW, you forgot to add a "boring" reaction to my post.

[Aragathor]

Quote

WG, do you want to know what's wrong with your game?

The answer is as always:

 

No, gib money.

[Kazomir]

Whats wrong with their game is WG always wants to stack an update after update, and never looks back to re-check if anything broken is causing issues.

 

This leads to a tower of mistakes that will inevitably fall apart.

[Hopeless_Guppy]

I think the forum is the wrong place to complain, you could try WoW's twitter, probably they don't read that though either.

[IanH755]

21 minutes ago, Kazomir said:

Whats wrong with their game is WG always wants to stack an update after update, and never looks back to re-check if anything broken is causing issues.

 

This leads to a tower of mistakes that will inevitably fall apart.

 

Ah, it wasn't always like this young padawan .

 

Back in ancient history you only got 3-4 patches a year but people complained about the lack "new" things and the delays to fix things broken by a previous patch. So WG introduced the current 4 weeks per patch system and initially it worked well, but then the self-imposed drive to introduce "new content" with every patch broke the Dev/Coding/QC side so now bugs take longer and longer to fix and get missed by QC who are max'd trying to check so many things out, allowing the bugs which should have been caught into the game in the first place.

 

The "best" practice would be to keep the 4 week patch cycle but alternate the patches into either a "Fix things" or "New content" patch, so effectively 6 fix things and 6 new content patches per year, rather than trying to cram everything into 12 patches. This would allow more testing (so less bugs, more balancing etc) and better quality new content to be given out but WG are instead chasing the "must release new content to grab money" route, to the detriment of the game itself.

[Kazomir]

2 minutes ago, IanH755 said:

 

Ah, it wasn't always like this young padawan .

 

Back in ancient history you only got 3-4 patches a year but people complained about the lack "new" things and the delays to fix things broken by a previous patch. So WG introduced the current 4 weeks per patch system and initially it worked well, but then the self-imposed drive to introduce "new content" with every patch broke the Dev/Coding/QC side so now bugs take longer and longer to fix and get missed by QC who are max'd trying to check so many things out, allowing the bugs which should have been caught into the game in the first place.

 

The "best" practice would be to keep the 4 week patch cycle but alternate the patches into either a "Fix things" or "New content" patch, so effectively 6 fix things and 6 new content patches per year, rather than trying to cram everything into 12 patches. This would allow more testing (so less bugs, more balancing etc) and better quality new content to be given out but WG are instead chasing the "must release new content to grab money" route, to the detriment of the game itself.

Yea, alternate content and balance patches, its not that hard.

[LuckySkilled]

Fix the problem?
Comrade, we will merge your thread with the CV main discussion, da!

[Yosha_AtaIante]

2 hours ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

yes... quitting again now... for some time.

I warned every observant reader that I might *gasp* return for playing a couple of battles now and then.

BTW, you forgot to add a "boring" reaction to my post.

I usually don't use those. I like to spread positivity and positive reactions 

[HassenderZerhacker]

9 minutes ago, Zuihou_Kai said:

I usually don't use those. I like to spread positivity and positive reactions 

wow, you sure like dropping bombs on your readers!

[illy]

2 hours ago, Kazomir said:

Whats wrong with their game is WG always wants to stack an update after update, and never looks back to re-check if anything broken is causing issues.

 

This leads to a tower of mistakes that will inevitably fall apart.

i do wonder if players would prefer constant updated material such as new ships and the commander rework etc. or, perhaps fixing many of the bugs and balancing issues the game has right now, i am guessing the former is better for the bank balance

[KillStealBoss]

2 hours ago, Inappropriate_noob said:

I think the forum is the wrong place to complain, you could try WoW's twitter, probably they don't read that though either.

I think they don't. And if people will be commenting there much - they'll use bans. We saw what was happening on stream. Even comments that were not offending got deleted and people got banned. 

[HassenderZerhacker]

1 minute ago, MacArthur92 said:

I think they don't. And if people will be commenting there much - they'll use bans. We saw what was happening on stream. Even comments that were not offending got deleted and people got banned. 

nice chaps!

[KillStealBoss]

7 hours ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

nice chaps!

Yeah. And I'm used to this crap. Same thing on FB and YouTube. Try to have different opinion than the "mainstream" or just state an obvious fact that those bigtech don't like. You'll be slapped pretty hard with bans. Especially FB. But this is offtop. 

Just know one thing - facts don't matter, just emotions and selective info. Sounds like tactics used by the "red guys" back in the days. 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

20 minutes ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

wow, you sure like dropping bombs on your readers!

You noticed. I got rusty it seems :/

[El2aZeR]

5 hours ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

Ships of a certain unmentionable type make up 4% of the queue.

 

This 4% is only represented by 2 to 4 players per match over just 4 tiers unlike every other class, as such the probability of meeting it is actually fairly high.

[Skyllon]

5 hours ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

(...)

BTW, you forgot to add a "boring" reaction to my post.

Fixed. I'm very co-op(erative) person and live to make others happy.

[Captain_Campbell]

4% of the queue means you should see a pair of them on average every 2 games (2/48 = 0.042) that seems about average from my experience, although they never appear when I have my Atlanta or Des Moines out

[eliastion]

9 hours ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

Played 3 battles today.

Ships of a certain unmentionable type make up 4% of the queue.

I get 100% battles with said ships in them.

Just fix the problem.

A team consists of 12 ships

1 ship is around 8% of the team.

With 4% certain Class Vessels in the queue, you'd expect to see them every second battle.

 

However, this assumes that the other classes don't have any caps in battles AND that there are certain Class Vessels on every tier. This is not the case. T9 ships, for example, get some matches of "t9 only" (probably the case for every tier but I notice it most on t9). Such a match can't have a certain Class Vessel - and you (playing a t8) won't see it. But a match like this still siphons out of the queue some t9 ships that you could've otherwise met. And as for the caps... Look at the queue in your first screenshot. BBs constitute over 3/4 of the queue - and yet we don't expect matches with 9 BBs per side.

 

In light of that, seeing a certain Class Vessel almost every battle seems to be the expected outcome of having a queue with 4% of certain Class Vessels.

[KillStealBoss]

9 hours ago, Zuihou_Kai said:

weren't you supposed to quit the game? 

I mean you announced you are quitting 2 times already. 

Maybe he paused his quit 

[Perekotypole]

I have CV in 8 of 10 battles.... not counting those where I play CV myself. But why would you complain about  CVs if you are playing Odin? Odin is probably the hardest battleship for CV to strike, it's more nimble then many battlecruisers. Many ships are played diferently depending if there's CV in game. Moskva or DM sit nose in near island close to cap if there's no CV. But if there's CV in match nose in is suicide position for those. Same for Odin, you can't play it nose in angled and shoot your secondaries if there's CV. You have to play it as a mobile flanker, always on the move.

[Uglesett]

Fundamentally, what's wrong is that Russian business schools seemingly do not teach their students about sunk cost.

[HassenderZerhacker]

13 hours ago, Perekotypole said:

I have CV in 8 of 10 battles.... not counting those where I play CV myself. But why would you complain about  CVs if you are playing Odin? Odin is probably the hardest battleship for CV to strike, it's more nimble then many battlecruisers. Many ships are played diferently depending if there's CV in game. Moskva or DM sit nose in near island close to cap if there's no CV. But if there's CV in match nose in is suicide position for those. Same for Odin, you can't play it nose in angled and shoot your secondaries if there's CV. You have to play it as a mobile flanker, always on the move.

nah, purple resumees will make 3 or 4 passes on your Odin, despite having fighters and hitting with AP bombs or torps every time, and will ignore flak.

[Perekotypole]

Vor 2 Stunden, HassenderZerhacker sagte:

nah, purple resumees will make 3 or 4 passes on your Odin, despite having fighters and hitting with AP bombs or torps every time, and will ignore flak.

I'm quite good in CVs and moving targets like Odin or Gneissenau is something I avoid for easier targets. Purple CV not gonna kill purple Odin in 4 passes, not even in 10, unless it's already endgame and Odin is cornered. And purple CVs just like purple Odins are very rare. Yes I've killed stationary Odins in three passes, but stationary isn't the way to play Odin with CV around. I've killed few stationary Des Moines in three passes, but again, you don't play DM stationary with CV around, unless some other good AA ship is nearby and you both can shoot down three of four squadrons.