Patch 0.6.0 Patch Notes - RPF is still a thing

[RUSSIANBlAS]

Funny how WG feel RDF isn't an issue in Ranked. That's where its going to do the most damage, at least it will stop stupid torp boats thinking they cash advance in it...

[RambaRal]

• It is an expensive skill to have, and very situational. There are a lot of desirable skills, and if you choose RPF you still lose out on other useful skills.

 

This is a shameless lie. The only build that will have to drop useful skills to get this one is, go figure, DD.

 

 

 

 

• The warning this skill gives to its target is kind of equalizer. The enemy will have your approximate sector, and you, in return, will know that the enemy is going to target you.

 

"In return"? Thank you, captain Obvious, I really need that someone tells me that an enemy warned of my presence is going to target me, because you know, I don't have, like, the ability to zoom in my desired target to see where its gun are positioned.

Let's do a deal, I refuse the nifty "in return" option and you get rid of the skill uhu?

 

Each time they try to justify this sh***y new skill they give more ridiculous explanations.

[P4RDUS]

Wargaming, just scrap that Radio [edited], because it destroys the game mechanics and add another CV skill for more diversity. If you play CVs, air superiority is a no brainer skill for time being.

 

I think developers have no idea about their own game, because RPF is a HUGE thing, especially in ranked.

[Lt_Mic]

WG claimed PT feedback on WallHack was overwhelmingly positive.. this does look quite the opposite from that 

 

because everybody that had problem with RPF and said it on forums did not get PTS survey like me  (were in 10%)

Yesterday I only got "Regular Survey" which did not included any place to comment about PTS or what i do not like with the game atm.

so yes it was very "objective" just as WG needs it.....

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

WG claimed PT feedback on WallHack was overwhelmingly positive.. this does look quite the opposite from that 

 

 

I know exactly what happened...

 

I participated in both 0.6.0 PTs and answered both surveys.

 

 

Here is what I answered:

 

#1

I generally like the new changes (and especially 4 tiers of skills now compared to 5 tiers before) - it was a "slider" with "- ... 0 ... +"

 

#2

I particularly explained (in special dialog box) that I don't like the RPF and why I don't like it

 

 

So... if they only looked at the raw data from survey (entered via "slider") from people like me who generally liked the new changes they can be in big problem because they simply overlooked all those additional remarks of how we do not like the RPF (because those were all textual explanation and you simply can't "numerize" them)!

 

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[daki]

because everybody that had problem with RPF and said it on forums did not get PTS survey like me  (were in 10%)

 

What a conspiracy theory

 

Judging from the level of activity of WG staff on forums here and WGEU as a whole, do you honestly believe that they:

- spent considerable time tracking people on forums dissatisfied with RPF

- made huge lists of player nicknames

- spent effort in making sure that those on the "list" do not get the survey

While still having the usual option irrespective of surveys to just disregard said feedback?

 

You can accuse them of disregarding feedback, of making poor design choices... but there are really no arguments to accuse them of additional work and effort to rig a survey by excluding specific players.

[mtm78]

 

What a conspiracy theory

 

Judging from the level of activity of WG staff on forums here and WGEU as a whole, do you honestly believe that they:

- spent considerable time tracking people on forums dissatisfied with RPF

- made huge lists of player nicknames

- spent effort in making sure that those on the "list" do not get the survey

While still having the usual option irrespective of surveys to just disregard said feedback?

 

You can accuse them of disregarding feedback, of making poor design choices... but there are really no arguments to accuse them of additional work and effort to rig a survey by excluding specific players.

 

I don't know what happened but I saw a quote where 70% answered in the survey the new skills would be detrimental to gameplay.

 

That is what I commented on. And no there is no rigging in survey eligability as I got the invite but I didn't fill it in. Not the first time btw,, I keep forgetting to check my pop3 mailbox for the old email my WG account is linked with. 

 

Besides, I reconed they would take my forum feedback as just as important as the survey, and YES btw, ofc the questions in the survey are made such they can be interpreted how they want, that is what all companies do and WG is no angel. 

 

 

[MrWastee]

q&a incoming on facebook:

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/71998-developer-qa-2001-1600-cet/page__p__1588738#entry1588738

 

[...]

 

Please join us for our Facebook live stream tomorrow 20/01, from 16:00 CET, where we will be asking your questions!

 

In attendance will be:

• MrConway - EU Community Coordinator
• Tuccy - EU Community WoWs Specialist
• Sub_Octavian - Game Analytics Team Lead
• WelIdone - Economics & Metagameplay Team Lead

 

[...]

 

 

 

[kimbo321]

Sorry for dumb question, but what is RPF

 

[TheCinC]

Sorry for dumb question, but what is RPF

 

The old name for radio location.

It was also mistakenly called Radio Direction Finding, or RDF, which was a historical name for radar.

[MrWastee]

Sorry for dumb question, but what is RPF

 

Radio Positioning Finding, aKa keen intuition, aKa radio location (current name). provides HUD info on where the next enemy is, no matte rif spotted or not. aKa "go there"

[TheCinC]

As for why they did it, someone posted that they are doing the same thing they did to WoT, dumb it down, make it more accessible, in hopes of attracting more people.

If this has the opposite effect, maybe they will reverse themselves and finally start catering to history nerds.

So far, the only thing in this game that really pleases me are the game models.

To be honest, I havea hard time imagining anything else than a reversal, as this IS game-breaking, as it makes it almost impossible for DDs to accomplish much of anything, potentially dropping there numbers and thereby even more breaking the intended rock-paper-scissors working of the game.

But if enough people just don't care and just keep playing, WG will just keep it in.

 

I still can't wrap my head around the fact that they did this, even if their intention is to make the game more accessible.

Can you imagine a game like Battlefield, CoD or CS implementing a wallhack or anything remotely like that?
But in this game, they think it is a bright idea, despite the objections of many.

 

Meanwhile, I'm starting to think I'll sit and wait until the next iteration.

If it introduces RN BBs or nerfs/deletes radio location, then I'll be back.

Not sure I'll play the game until then, pretty sure I'll be way too frustrated.

I've already seen enough of radio location on PTS to last me a lifetime.

I'll probably be active on the forums at least, but if you don't see me in game for a while, don't worry..

[Benaulim]

nm

[daki]

 

I don't know what happened but I saw a quote where 70% answered in the survey the new skills would be detrimental to gameplay.

 

That is what I commented on. And no there is no rigging in survey eligability as I got the invite but I didn't fill it in. Not the first time btw,, I keep forgetting to check my pop3 mailbox for the old email my WG account is linked with. 

 

Besides, I reconed they would take my forum feedback as just as important as the survey, and YES btw, ofc the questions in the survey are made such they can be interpreted how they want, that is what all companies do and WG is no angel. 

 

 

 

Tbh I was just commenting on the statement of Lt_Mic:

"...because everybody that had problem with RPF and said it on forums did not get PTS survey like me  (were in 10%)"

and not any of your posts, so you got me a bit confused here

 

If you ask why, these are the reasons:

I have no problems with people not liking any skill or mechanic in the game as long as it is presented in a normal and rational way.

However when I see things such as:

- Putting forward conspiracy theories which are baseless and just have as intent to be toxic / trolling

- Trying to present "opinions" as "facts" and belittling & insulting fellow captains with different opinions

- Gross exaggerations for the sole purpose of trying to make specific opinions seem more valid

- Very knowledgeable people bending on purpose certain facts and implications in order to present their subjective opinions as "objective truth from an expert"

I tend to react on occasions and point it out, since I do not believe that they are a helpful way to provide a feedback - just painting our community in a bad light, and providing ultimately bad advice to fellow captains

In other words I tend to react to extreme types of statements. So in my opinion, as an example, trying to argue that things are great and rosy, as well as trying to argue that things are awful and catastrophic (speaking of WoWs), tends to be equally wrong 

We have often examples of above behaviors on EU forums since many seem to believe it makes them look cool and popular. Being of opinion that WoWs is more suited to an older audience who like and respect

[kimbo321]

 

Radio Positioning Finding, aKa keen intuition, aKa radio location (current name). provides HUD info on where the next enemy is, no matte rif spotted or not. aKa "go there"

 

thank you