Jump to content
Flandre Bug Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Tanatoy

ST 0.10.1, changes to test ships. (DB 119)

41 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG]
WG Staff, Administrator, Community, WG Team
5,018 posts
4,216 battles

We adjusted the parameters of some ships based on testing results. The changes will be applied to hybrids Ise and Tone

 

Read more

 

Please note that all information in the development blog is preliminary. Announced adjustments and features may change multiple times during testing. The final information will be published on our game's website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
29,623 posts
15,308 battles

Please consider removing the player controlled planes and just give the ships useful plane-based consumables.

  • improved spotter (low cooldown, longer duration, maybe even improved dispersion) (Ise)
  • improved fighter (more powerful, with longer duration and range) (Ise, Tone)
  • a real scout plane, that flies in circles around the ship at a range of 10km for a few minutes (Tone)
  • a computer controlled attack squadron that attacks the ship you have marked, when you activate it (Ise, Tone)
  • Cool 6
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,754 posts
7,438 battles
7 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Please consider removing the player controlled planes and just give the ships useful plane-based consumables.

  • improved spotter (low cooldown, longer duration, maybe even improved dispersion) (Ise)
  • improved fighter (more powerful, with longer duration and range) (Ise, Tone)
  • a real scout plane, that flies in circles around the ship at a range of 10km for a few minutes (Tone)
  • a computer controlled attack squadron that attacks the ship you have marked, when you activate it (Ise, Tone)

No - pls don’t consider that. Consumable planes would be very very boring 

 

EDIT: and the change sounds very reasonable. How long is the initial waiting time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
29,623 posts
15,308 battles
13 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

No - pls don’t consider that. Consumable planes would be very very boring

Maybe, but they are better to balance.

We have already seen divisions of one CV and two hybrids.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
5,687 posts
11,574 battles
1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

No - pls don’t consider that. Consumable planes would be very very boring 

 

EDIT: and the change sounds very reasonable. How long is the initial waiting time?

though in the end premiums are mostly always boring? :D

I mean, they often have just some different stats or consumables

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,754 posts
7,438 battles
6 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

though in the end premiums are mostly always boring? :D

I mean, they often have just some different stats or consumables

Are you saying you want these to be boring...? :Smile_amazed:

 

I prefer interesting ships...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
5,687 posts
11,574 battles
1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Are you saying you want these to be boring...? :Smile_amazed:

 

I prefer interesting ships...

I'm saying, that it's mostly normal to have those ships like all others ships, just with different stats. To special ships can become an balancing issue in some way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,754 posts
7,438 battles
1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I'm saying, that it's mostly normal to have those ships like all others ships, just with different stats. To special ships can become an balancing issue in some way

They held back Tone for 6 years because they wanted to create an interesting hybrid - which most likely will be rather popular. Now you suggest to go back and dumb it down to a cheap & boring “Box’o’Gimmick” premium. Sounds like a bad plan to me 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
5,687 posts
11,574 battles
2 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

They held back Tone for 6 years because they wanted to create an interesting hybrid - which most likely will be rather popular. Now you suggest to go back and dumb it down to a cheap & boring “Box’o’Gimmick” premium. Sounds like a bad plan to me 

I did years ago the suggestion to add specific plane consumables for these ships to finally add them. It's just logically to make those ships like all the other premiums.

 

As soon we get any competitive mode on those tiers, these ships might become meta. That's the issue with "special features". That is actually what I think is boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
29,623 posts
15,308 battles
14 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

They held back Tone for 6 years because they wanted to create an interesting hybrid - which most likely will be rather popular. Now you suggest to go back and dumb it down to a cheap & boring “Box’o’Gimmick” premium. Sounds like a bad plan to me 

The problem is the player cannot be in two different locations at once.

Either the planes are as powerful has a whole ship or the player is losing out when using the planes. When they are as powerful as a whole ship, you get huge problems with division play or multiple ships of that sort on one side.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ZEN]
Players
1,384 posts
14,481 battles
35 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I'm saying, that it's mostly normal to have those ships like all others ships, just with different stats. To special ships can become an balancing issue in some way

I like my Italian premium ships cause they are actually fun to play as they don't have the stupid SAP gimmicks that get balanced by removing the fun factor from the ships.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ZEN]
Players
1,384 posts
14,481 battles

@world_262 Rather than just down voting all my comments criticizing what WG keep doing to Italian ship lines why don't you give us your opinion seeing as you are in an Italian clan and do so well in your Venezia.

 

If you think I am just hating on the Italian's your wrong I love all the ship designs and based on premiums that were released for the nation before they got their tech tree as some of my favourite ships to play. However, when WG added their 'Gimmicks' to the ships they turned them into weird performing ships that promote 1 type of ammunition usage only (something Duca and Roma don't do as you need to use both ammunition types depending on the situation) with super long reloads. I want to like the Italian lines, but WG keep turning me right off them... And the annoying thing is, is that all it would take to fix the situation is for them to reduce the SAP alpha to be significantly below the AP alpha and all would be fine for the other stats to be adjusted to where the ships would be fun to play...

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-ITA]
Players
15 posts
5 hours ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

@world_262 Rather than just down voting all my comments criticizing what WG keep doing to Italian ship lines why don't you give us your opinion seeing as you are in an Italian clan and do so well in your Venezia.

 

If you think I am just hating on the Italian's your wrong I love all the ship designs and based on premiums that were released for the nation before they got their tech tree as some of my favourite ships to play. However, when WG added their 'Gimmicks' to the ships they turned them into weird performing ships that promote 1 type of ammunition usage only (something Duca and Roma don't do as you need to use both ammunition types depending on the situation) with super long reloads. I want to like the Italian lines, but WG keep turning me right off them... And the annoying thing is, is that all it would take to fix the situation is for them to reduce the SAP alpha to be significantly below the AP alpha and all would be fine for the other stats to be adjusted to where the ships would be fun to play...

Ok, my idea is to remove AP, and leave them only with SAP, so that WG will be forced to buff SAP to make them fun, and people will stop saying to make SAP less strong than AP.

  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ZEN]
Players
1,384 posts
14,481 battles
38 minutes ago, world_262 said:

Ok, my idea is to remove AP, and leave them only with SAP, so that WG will be forced to buff SAP to make them fun, and people will stop saying to make SAP less strong than AP.

Wow shows that your the type of players that WG are catering to the most then... 1 Ammunition for all situations, just point and click...

 

World of Warships the Thinking man's Action Game... Was about 3 years ago...

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
2,783 posts
6,795 battles
On 2/12/2021 at 3:15 PM, 1MajorKoenig said:

Are you saying you want these to be boring...? :Smile_amazed:

 

I prefer interesting ships...

Interesting for whom?

 

Planes are already a royal pain in the rectum for anyone caught in their sights, adding even more plane spotting isn't going to make the game any more pleasant. These ships should never have been introduced in the first place, because post CV rework there is no way of balancing them in a way that makes them effective and good to play without also making them broken. Either they'll be bad as both surface combatants and CVs, needing to disengage for long periods of time to get any use out of a squadron. Or they'll be ridiculously overpowered, at least in the right hands, because of the spotting and potential to finish off opponents that otherwise could have escaped and healed. Suddenly you'll have matches where one team has planes spotting their opponents while the other team does not have that luxury. And you'll end up with funny situations like this: https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/142984-seriously/.

 

 

Pre-rework, they would have made more sense. They would have made for a high-skill-floor play style where if you had the attention to control a squadron and the ship at the same time, your planes could compensate for the reduced damage output of your guns. But you'd have to be good to avoid losing all your planes to actually functional AA while not getting your ship sunk while within gunnery range of the opposition. And the ability to spot for yourself would be highly useful if you survived to the late game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,754 posts
7,438 battles
21 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

Interesting for whom?

 

Planes are already a royal pain in the rectum for anyone caught in their sights, adding even more plane spotting isn't going to make the game any more pleasant. These ships should never have been introduced in the first place, because post CV rework there is no way of balancing them in a way that makes them effective and good to play without also making them broken. Either they'll be bad as both surface combatants and CVs, needing to disengage for long periods of time to get any use out of a squadron. Or they'll be ridiculously overpowered, at least in the right hands, because of the spotting and potential to finish off opponents that otherwise could have escaped and healed. Suddenly you'll have matches where one team has planes spotting their opponents while the other team does not have that luxury. And you'll end up with funny situations like this: https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/142984-seriously/.

 

 

Pre-rework, they would have made more sense. They would have made for a high-skill-floor play style where if you had the attention to control a squadron and the ship at the same time, your planes could compensate for the reduced damage output of your guns. But you'd have to be good to avoid losing all your planes to actually functional AA while not getting your ship sunk while within gunnery range of the opposition. And the ability to spot for yourself would be highly useful if you survived to the late game. 

Well it’s fair to say I disagree. And I am convinced it is relatively easy to strike a good balance here. The ships need to be weaker in normal surface combat as one part of their strength is the squadron. You won’t be able to employ them constantly but only at occasions. These two elements put together should make the complete power level of these ships. It is a reasonable approach to limit the extend to how much these hybrids can make use of the planes. There should be a noticeable difference to CVs - after all they are not full CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
2,783 posts
6,795 battles
22 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

The ships need to be weaker in normal surface combat as one part of their strength is the squadron.

Ok, let's take Ise as an example. Gunnery-wise, Fuso has 50% more guns, of the same type, which means that Ise's damage output from the get-go is only 2/3 of her tier mate's. And then when you launch a squadron you're suddenly stuck for a minute or two without firing those guns. Either the squadron has to be stupidly powerful to make up for that significant drop in damage output from the guns, or the ship is just straight up going to be significantly weaker than her tech tree counterpart. Or, she'll have to magically have better gunnery than her counterpart in order to at least have a chance at keeping up.

 

Her survivability is also going to take a hit, since she's going to be a really easy target while you're controlling a squadron. So either you have to keep her out of harm's way (further reducing the damage output compared to a regular BB that can play more aggressively and actively evade fire), or you'll have to live with taking a lot of damage while you have planes in the air.

 

Unless they do some serious woo-woo with the ship's stats, she's always going to be a straight up worse BB than Fuso. And her planes are unlikely to compensate for that, since they're not additional damage, it's an either/or situation. The one thing she's got going for her is a situational ability to spot targets that otherwise won't be spotted. Which generally means making life worse for DDs and other ships that rely on stealth to be effective. In short, yet another thing that's not really going to threaten BBs, but make the cruiser and DD experience worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,754 posts
7,438 battles
6 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

Unless they do some serious woo-woo with the ship's stats, she's always going to be a straight up worse BB than Fuso.

Yes weaker in 1-on-1 BB gunnery would be fine as you gain tactical options by spotting and occasional strikes beyond your gun range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
2,783 posts
6,795 battles
1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Yes weaker in 1-on-1 BB gunnery would be fine as you gain tactical options by spotting and occasional strikes beyond your gun range.

You sort of missed the main point:

Which generally means making life worse for DDs and other ships that rely on stealth to be effective. In short, yet another thing that's not really going to threaten BBs, but make the cruiser and DD experience worse.

 

What this game does not need are more things that spot DDs and stealthy but fragile cruisers while being bad against BBs. And you just know that the limited strike potential of these squadrons is not going to be used against comparatively well defended battleships, when there are squishier targets to go after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,754 posts
7,438 battles
26 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

You sort of missed the main point:

 

 

 

What this game does not need are more things that spot DDs and stealthy but fragile cruisers while being bad against BBs. And you just know that the limited strike potential of these squadrons is not going to be used against comparatively well defended battleships, when there are squishier targets to go after.

That depends on what the loadout is at the end. I would prefer torps which are not an ideal DD counter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
237 posts
142 battles
On 2/14/2021 at 4:47 AM, Chaos_Umbra said:

Wow shows that your the type of players that WG are catering to the most then... 1 Ammunition for all situations, just point and click...

 

World of Warships the Thinking man's Action Game... Was about 3 years ago...

Remember Conq Lmao:Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ZEN]
Players
1,384 posts
14,481 battles
1 hour ago, totally_potato said:

Remember Conq Lmao:Smile_trollface:

Well Italian BBs are Conqueror MK 2 only with no fires and double the alpha strike...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
237 posts
142 battles
13 minutes ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

Well Italian BBs are Conqueror MK 2 only with no fires and double the alpha strike...

yup, DDs are kinda protected, but other classes are gonna be shitted upon by this SAP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ZEN]
Players
1,384 posts
14,481 battles
1 minute ago, totally_potato said:

yup, DDs are kinda protected, but other classes are gonna be shitted upon by this SAP

You do realise the T10 has a potential of 66k damage alpha with only SAP pens...

Share this post


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

×