Debunking Devs argument about RPF

[celephais]

Ladies and gentlemen, your Honor,

 

First we must start with the argument from the side of the Devs and WG:

 

"it's perception is one of the most controversial for us, and this is not a surprise... We know about BB and DD balance concerns, about RPF perception and other difficult questions we encountered while working on this update".

 

In this statement they acknowledge that this is the most controversial of their decisions ever made. Point two, they also recognized how delicate the balance is between BB's and DD's. So, they do play their game, they do understand the impact of certain skills. Good. Then they go on to implement this skill unchanged in the 2nd round of PTS. One suggestions that pops into my head oh so casually is, if this skill is intended for DD hunters (a very specific role for a ship), why isn't it an Upgrade module? Why none of them thought, "Let's try it in the 2nd round of PTS as Upgrade module only for these specific type of ships and see the responses"?

 

 

Moving on: "The PRO aspect of adding this skill is to improve the role of DD hunters that is crucial to all cruisers and some destroyers. We expect this to be an efficient option for these ships, but definitely not a must".

 

The PRO aspect. Is this the PRO as professional or PRO as pro-life? Either way, the real good player was in dire need of this? Even an avg. player like me would understand that map awareness, angling, intuition even, positioning, thinking matter in this game. Thus, it is not CoD. Important for me for playing this game but for the PRO players then it should definitely be a NO-go skill. The ppl that have 60%+ win rate might not be against or for it, but it will affect the whole game play experience of everyone. Here's the catch for ppl like Wax. The "I" is way too emphasized in his posts and last time i checked this is a team based game. Again, not CoD.

 

Now, as someone corrected me, it might be used as "rather the latin PRO as in "fore" (positive)" but it makes no difference on the argument. This is a mandatory skill for a DD hunter but also for any DD that wants to know were his hunter is, isn't it? It is like you are a gazelle in the jungle right? And the tiger has this unique skill and you know you can have it too. Why would you go, "No, i don't need to know were my killer will be, i am a positive animal." Of course we are allowed to be as naive as we want. 

 

Again, it all points that it would make sense to have it as a very specific Upgrade module but again, the hunted should have a counter and this case the hunted does not. This is a one way skill, there are absolutely no counters for the one who decides not to pick it.

 

 

 

Lastly: "We are not planning to make the game too casual...we do not consider these skills, including RPF, to be "crutch". These are tools you have at your choice. If you don't need them, because you are skilled player, use other tools and you will have more efficiency than those who picked RPF+Priority target+Alert"

 

Fair point. Even the egocentric and too arrogant skilled player would agree here i assume. We will be waiting to see the results, their posts and comments on the forum after a year happily. Personally i think if i saw this skill in a game 15 years ago i would go, "crap, they legalize a cheat. Why not take it?". Yes, there are other useful skills with 4 points but i can't see myself as being the unaware hunted one. And on the other side you need a counter and the only counter for the hunted (by the DD hunters) is to also take this skill and not rely on wits, positioning.

 

 

 

In closing: "According to PTS survey, the majority of players are satisfied or happy with the skill changes". I am against RPF and yet i am happy with the Commander skill changes? Ask my why...Because the Devs have a ton of data after a year, might as well use to refine and enrich the game even further. I welcome the new skills. This is not an argument against the overwhelmingly negative feedback against RPF, is it now?

 

"According to our own conclusions, changes are good, too." They are not referring to RPF, they are referring to the whole changes in the Commander skills, or are they?... "We absolutely heard and studied "against" arguments - and decided that "for" is stronger here."

 

Let me end this by saying that, this reminds me the case of "The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst", were the jury completely disregard the facts, mind you the facts and they claimed innocent a murderer. This is life, these are the people, people with authority tend ignore and disregard hard facts and this is the argument made by WG for implementing this skill ultimately.

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

[All of the info for the Devs perspective was taken from iEarlGrey's vid , "

]

[KarmaQU_EU]

A fine entry. I usually do not post anymore, but now in aid of this interesting investigation, if I may be allowed to present observations acquired during my experience of WoWs ...

Ahem.

 

Back when I played, even though this was before the German BB line was released, I was unicum in all lines. So I hope my words will be of at least a little help.

 

To hunt a DD, the most efficient way was to call in a stray dive-bomber squad from a CV, which wouldn't be missed (unlike fighters and torpedo-bombers). The DD, unless possessing exceptionally strong AA, or a ready-to-use smokescreen consumable, would be unable to do anything except back away to a safe position and hope the DB squad loses interest in it. DDs which were already in a position of vulnerability to "DD-hunters", as is most of the case, usually do not make it. 

 

The second most efficient way to hunt a DD was to use the radar consumable on high tier cruisers. These cruisers themselves would possess concealment ratings able to bring them within lethal firing range of a target without breaking stealth, defined by a firing range at which a DD would very likely be hit for very much damage with little chance of evasion (about 10km). Sometimes DDs would be careless, wandering too close to a radar-cruiser for comfort, and before they can be react, have been lit up and put to the chase. If the cruiser was a good shot, at such close ranges where firing accuracy is high and shell travel times low, any evasive maneuver the DD takes is for naught except to slow down their overall speed and make them even less likely to escape the high-speed cruiser. Exceptionally skilled cruisers can even, within the time-window of the radar activation, fully deplete the hp of a DD with nothing but their own two salvos during this timeframe, before slinking back into stealth to escape return fire from enemies trying to cover the DD. 

 

The remaining way to purposely hunt a DD was to simply run into them with any ship in a planned scenario (preferably a ship suitable for fighting DDs), and win the fight. But if we call encountering a DD and then killing it "hunting", then it would seem most discriminating for all DDs, as some of them are more than capable of being hunters themselves.

 

But back to the topic. The RPF skill, as I understand it, simply simplifies much of the logistics behind the above scenario. Ship-based DD hunting had to first overcome the issue of the unknown position of the DD. Back when I played, this could be achieved in multiple ways, some examples being 1. Carefully flush positions DDs usually hide in. Corners, pathways, direct routes to and from spawn points and capping points ... these are usually easy to identify, because the map designers of WG make it really obvious. 2. Bait the DD into revealing itself by sending bait, usually in the form of a weak, low-tier, non-gunboat DD. Then when enemy DDs start fighting it, open fire in your stealth-Zao following 4km behind the bait. 3. Have the DDs in your team get into a fight, but stealth back out. Then sneak a stealthy radar-cruiser as close as possible (bow-first if too close to enemy capital ships, and preferably with about 20k of buffer hp you are ready to lose while unstealthed), towards where the enemy DDs are likely headed, and preferably behind cover (which allows you to get in even closer), before synchronizing a salvo with nearby ships, activating radar, and deleting a DD or two before holding fire till stealthed.

 

So if I may attempt a brief investigation of my own: The logistics of DD hunting were thus careful triangulating, approaching, and executing of a plan on the DD. If RPF was available in the above scenarios, then in example (1), all suspense of flushing a spot would be gone, as rpf works behind walls, (2), some suspense would be gone, and while DDs would be unable to know if there was a cruiser following behind the closest target, they could still angle and approach in a more careful setting than before, as well as make possible guesses of enemy ship type and exact distance by comparing concealment ranges (from the moment allies with lower concealment rating are spotted), (3) The triangulating of the location of enemy DDs would be more precise, but only slightly more exact and reliable than for instance charting the course of the last direction enemy DDs were headed after the encounter with the spotting squad of DDs, or the general direction of their torpedoes' wake.

 

Thus we can see that in a purposeful DD hunting scenario, the effects of the RPF skill is limited. DD hunting existed in efficient and organized form way before the introduction of this skill. However, from the reactions I observed to the introduction of this skill, it should be having major changes on the effects on gameplay. Thus arises the possibility of the alternative: that the mechanics of this skill work in ways which overshadow its intended effect on gameplay, affecting more than just the sphere of DD hunting.

 

So we go back to the origins of DD hunting. I theorize that DDs in this game have these major defining traits: 1. High concealment. 2. Smokescreen (even higher concealment) and torpedoes (fired from high concealment, which is VERY DIFFERENT from torpedoes fired in not-high-concealment). Rapid firing, rapid turning, short-to-medium ranged guns able to unload balanced amounts of HE damage or fire chance, and situational amounts of AP damage. And maybe some torpedoes. 3. High maneuverability (acceleration and turn rate), high speed for some, but not by a lot. top tiers mostly the same.

 

Which is, in no-brainer definitions: 1. Stealth. 2. Mini-configured weapons. 3. Higher turn rates.

 

DDs had to be hunted because DDs are a threat, because they can utilize these traits of theirs to make an impact on the game. They [ugh I was disrupted at this point, severely, but I do not think this post warrants importance enough for me to return to focus (for now), thus I give up (for now). Womp, Womp, Womp.]

[KarmaQU_EU]

To continue ... 

Ahem. Why DDs are dangerous is not the most important topic of today, and I believe most of you present have much knowledge already of why DD hunting exists (hint, it's more than just to win the match).

 

And jesus I'm not writing an essay why am I even bothered to attempt to present the full logic structure and all observations and evidence and arguments etc etc.

 

And so after a quick, mock run-through in my mind of the logical structure of how RPF impacts non-purposeful DD hunting game mechanics severely (actually it impacts purposeful DD hunting a lot too, but I decided it didn't in my above post because the end-results were the same (i.e. even if you cannot corner-jump a DD because RPF would show there was a DD behind the wall, 1. the encounter would happen only slightly delayed later, inevitably, and 2. well-known corners in only so many available maps can hardly be counted as a "jump" anyways)  but my conclusion was that if this change was meant to address DDs, it is such an awfully crude and inefficient and collaterally effecting mechanic and not-very-compatible-with-current-systems mechanic that even I do not believe WG designers (no I do not think they are idiots) were comfortable with it. Not to say they wouldn't attempt such a change, but it shows they're getting both serious, and desperate. But running through the above conclusion led me to this difficult question: if so much was "inevitable" after all, then that means ... ... !? Thus, the below theory.

 

The Paragraph below is important. 

The RPF skill as I perceive fits very well into the design philosophies of WG. Back in WoT, the design philosophy was basically grind a bunch of tanks together until they more or less exploded each other out, and hope players found the brawling fun. For better or worse, WG has moved this philosophy, amongst numerous others, to WoWs without much change. Thus it is understandable that they would want ships to grind into and explode each other faster. The RPF skill is thus, as I take it, a solution not first and foremost to address issues with gameplay mechanics having to do with DDs, or any particular ship types at all, but a tentative move at refining gameplay direction as a whole. To make a leap of assumption, It would seem that WG wants ships to skip all but the most basic setup logistics necessary, and start wailing on each other in adrenaline filled frenzies. However, as we all know, even WoT had some moderation in instant-barbarianizing players; there was a repair fee after all, and rewards were performance based. Some caution was observed, even at low levels. WoWp was much more "fight fight fight", but we all know how that turned out. We are not barbarians, after all. And despite claims of he strategy aspect of these games, what they show us in trailers, even in highlight footage of tournament plays, what I see was "a bunch of medium tanks rushing like mad dogs against other medium tanks, then wailing each other out in 3-4 hits", or it was "medium tank breaking stealth before 3 other camping medium tanks is almost one-shot in record trigger-response time". Thus the argument that RPF is a design aimed at the overall gameplay philosophy level, and not at the mechanics level. This is also why all mechanical-related feedback, whether directly from players, or otherwise in stats, have had no influence whatsoever to the planned implementation of RPF. It returned in second-stage testing and eventually to release because none of this infringed upon its ultimate and core goal: to introduce a gameplay philosophy level change to the game. So unless it had extreme mechanical incompatibilities, it was unlikely that any of that mattered; players would have had to make the small sacrifice of adapting mechanically to experience the new "game" as an experience.

The Paragraph above is very important. 

 

This shows they are serious: they are reviewing the deeper aspects of what makes this game, and even acting upon it. However, even though I hope it is not the case, but observations including examples of -

1. High pricing (e.g. 100 euros for a ship, but not really "expensive" expensice, but most of us are not that wealthy)

2. None-perfect relations with the playerbase (which I assume happens in situations more or less correlated to consumer-unsatisfaction, a notable and severe example is the recent no man's sky, cough*)

3. Comparisons of market behavior of WG (innovatively buying, selling, regrouping of its assets, making new and old games, becoming a publisher label for other games) and its direct competitors (expanding product line as well and making more games with innovative (but stupidly designed, nonetheless) mechanics.

- show that they may be also getting a little bit desperate. Combined with whatever historical cultural traditions of your people ((this is not meant as an offence, but having depression myself (amongst other things), some people are just a little bit more sad and prone to resorting to finale situations and mindsets, which is very grand, of course, but still, sad, subjectively)), such a direct jump to the very core of what good they could manage to come up with ((good as in good, objectively, as defined by the playerbase. (I believe no game developer would willingly work to [edited]up a game), and so, as the metaphoric finale draws near, they resort to what good they could remember, the deepest, most guaranteed, honest and solidly existing good design they still had, and that was what made their game "fun", what made WoT a hit, and what they were good at, and comfortable with, designing)), in an attempt to start addressing all the complexities and complications these "game mechanics" were having on player's experience, drawn on long enough, almost making them (devs) moan silently to the heavens "why can't players just get together, shoot each other, and have fun?" ("and let us make money with the game in the meanwhile"), they decided that, inveitably, in order to make WoWs good again, changes on the scale of RTF would have to come, and now is as good a time as any to start.

 

Well, now that's as a satisfying conclusion as any. So after so much time taken away from further completing what I myself was doing from being both serious and desperate (I mean they do come together, one's only truly serious when they are truly desperate, and that's just humanity in a nutshell) for improving WoWs, I have reached the conclusion that there is nothing very alarming about RTF. The developers have not finally gone crazy (on the contrary, this may be one of the most serious and well-thought-out mechanics change they are attempting in a while). And I also don't want to see another mechanics-level discussion about it again (no offence to the players affected by it, and legitimately researching options at the mechanical level, I mean I just got to concentrate my efforts now on finishing my own designs for WoWs, ok?) (Captain-skill discussions are welcome, I have yet to come to an updated conclusion about the current state of the development of the captain-skills system myself).

 

 

[KarmaQU_EU]

Now why reaching conclusions such as the above is important, because investigating and identifying core WG game-making philosophies is very important if ones (such as myself) are working on overhaul design improvements. We will have to take these into account if we were to respect the developer ideals as well as the game temperament. However, I would still like to comment that if there was better player-developer relations, or at least communication, all this would be so freaking much easier. Yes of course there is the commercial discretion line of importance, wg can't just announce their core philosophies publicly so it can also be snapped up by other potential competitors, but (and I have so much to comment on this, but I don't really care, because there is just literally just so way too much I can say about this) , or at least some way of bypassing these shortfalls, you can achieve the gains without resorting to crude and risky ways. No I do not believe in utopia and perfect solutions, but there is always some better way. Or, in one sentence, I really do not want to see something like this RTF drama happen again, WG. Hire an ex diplomat or something. I don't care. Really, fix your public customer relations. Use censorship if that's your thing, and if you can make it work, all the glory to you. I am a solutions-minded person. But it's really crude, inefficient, stupid, etc. to be using censorship, and that's why you don't, right. There's much better ways, and less better excuses to be failing at it and having to resort to it. SO that's my point.  It's the same for this player-relations thing. See it from outside the box. It's not excusable. There's many other ways for making it work, and very little excuse for not. I'm really tired of seeing this type of drama. And no, even my design won't have any part in it to help you so it's up to you to fix this part.

[KarmaQU_EU]

Ladies and gentlemen, your Honor, 

 

etc.

And I would like to thank Celephais for the fine entry again. It's been almost half a year since I had a good rant on forums, and boy is a good rant good. Better than playing good WoWs (which I haven't played in almost half year). So thank you for leading me into a good, and even more importantly, what seems to be a productive rant. Cheers.

[Prospect_b]

Karma,

 

Euh, congrats on taking your time for that explanation. I have to admit i find your text overly convoluted... I wouldn't even know what your main point is.

The RPF skill is thus, as I take it, a solution not first and foremost to address issues with gameplay mechanics having to do with DDs, or any particular ship types at all, but a tentative move at refining gameplay direction as a whole.

Quote from the important paragraph.

 

Can you, in layman's terms, repeat or refine what you mean by "the refined gameplay" (which is established by (among others?) rdf)?

 

Thx

[RUSSIANBlAS]

So the TLDR is WG wish to make ships a brawl frenzy with no strategy.

 

Despite the game being built towards intelligent, thought out play...

[Akula971]

So the TLDR is WG wish to make ships a brawl frenzy with no strategy.

 

Despite the game being built towards intelligent, thought out play...

 

Yes pretty much, thats my take on it too, and if that is what it turns out to be, I'm off.

[jure_eruj]

No matter how skilled DD player you are, a schmuck with half your skills will mount RL on his US or russian DD or any cruiser and he will exactly know where you are, where the torps will come from or where you are running to.

[Altsak]

This is a mandatory skill for a DD hunter but also for any DD that wants to know were his hunter is, isn't it?

 

And because people are risk averse this means that RPF will make games become more slow and more boring because everyone is running away from the RPF lit enemy.

[moomoo2]

Blind Hunt in War Thunder. That's a far better way to do it. Consumable that reflects back on you after a set time.

[Shaka_D]

 

Yes pretty much, thats my take on it too, and if that is what it turns out to be, I'm off.

 

I agree, I enjoy the tactical element of it and if they remove some of the key options open to me while playing the game and herd me toward an all out click-fest gun battle then I'm off too. I'll test this out tonight after work and it I feel the game has been made worse off I'll most likely play my last game tonight, or at least until I get a better overall impression of whether I feel too forced to play the game the way they want me to play it. Maybe it won't be as bad as I anticipate, but if it is then I can't imagine hanging around. Not like they haven't been warned about it. Getting a little tired of them giving us hindsight excuses of stuff they knew would happen and then justifying it afterward with some feeble BS.

 

Let's hope for the best then, because I really enjoy the game. This is what it all boils down to doesn't it, our enjoyment of the game and whether it fills the brief of what we would like it to be. Changed too much, or dumbed down too much may signify the ultimate nail in the coffin. Time will tell, but if it turns out badly I'll not wait to hear their excuses when they revert it all.

[Venatacia]

So the TLDR is WG wish to make ships a brawl frenzy with no strategy.

 

Despite the game being built towards intelligent, thought out play...

 

​The game was built for intelligent thought out play but we now can see WG have changed their minds. They want WoT mentality, many tamatoe players fighting it out in fast battles. Why we see many 15/1 sided battles in WoT which is now happening here in WoW. It was only a matter of time before WG turned this game into another WoT.

[anonym_EFwxJOPWzlER]

I have played a bout half a dozen games today, i hated every minute of it, the RPF has turned a great game into a horrible game, sadly i will no longer carry on with this game, best of luck to everyone

[Nargoth73]

I am scared to log in and play now. Okay, granted, I mainly play BB but I feel this skill is too stupid to waste 4 points on. But if Karma's point turns out to be true and WoWs = WoT with ships regarding stupid corridor combat, I won't like that very much. There's a reason I play WoWs and not WoT anymore.

 

*insert picture of sad panda*

[MoveZig]

I say let the numbers speak for themselves. WG promised it wouldn't ruin IJN DDs. Let's see how their population and performance is in a few months of being tagged prey for gunboats.

[Allied_Winter]

Moving on: "The PRO aspect of adding this skill is to improve the role of DD hunters that is crucial to all cruisers and some destroyers. We expect this to be an efficient option for these ships, but definitely not a must".

 

The PRO aspect. Is this the PRO as professional or PRO as pro-life? Either way, the real good player was in dire need of this? Even an avg. player like me would understand that map awareness, angling, intuition even, positioning, thinking matter in this game. Thus, it is not CoD. Important for me for playing this game but for the PRO players then it should definitely be a NO-go skill. The ppl that have 60%+ win rate might not be against or for it, but it will affect the whole game play experience of everyone. Here's the catch for ppl like Wax. The "I" is way too emphasized in his posts and last time i checked this is a team based game. Again, not CoD.

 

Now, as someone corrected me, it might be used as "rather the latin PRO as in "fore" (positive)" but it makes no difference on the argument. 

 

 

First of: Very well put! Sound and reasonable! Kudos to that!

 

Second: "The PRO aspect..." was the answer to my question and I asked what positive aspects the devs see in this skill. Because everytime someone brought a negative point on the devs/CMs responded with 'there are good things about it'. Since those points were never adressed, I tried to pinpoint Sub_Octavian on the positive things.

 

And while I did understand his points, I'm not good with them.

 

 

In retrospect, I maybe should've worded my question a bit less confusing. On the other hand, it wouldn't have had that much impact on clearing up this situation.

 

 

Greetings

[anonym_j17GKWzHKZAZ]

 

celephais, on 19 January 2017 - 09:05 AM, said:

Moving on: "The PRO aspect of adding this skill is to improve the role of DD hunters that is crucial to all cruisers and some destroyers. We expect this to be an efficient option for these ships, but definitely not a must".

 

 

 

The PRO aspect. Is this the PRO as professional or PRO as pro-life? Either way, the real good player was in dire need of this? Even an avg. player like me would understand that map awareness, angling, intuition even, positioning, thinking matter in this game. Thus, it is not CoD. Important for me for playing this game but for the PRO players then it should definitely be a NO-go skill. The ppl that have 60%+ win rate might not be against or for it, but it will affect the whole game play experience of everyone. Here's the catch for ppl like Wax. The "I" is way too emphasized in his posts and last time i checked this is a team based game. Again, not CoD.

 

 

 

Now, as someone corrected me, it might be used as "rather the latin PRO as in "fore" (positive)" but it makes no difference on the argument. 

 

[RUSSIANBlAS]

The only "good" thing about this skill is you get to club folk who are either too noob or too stupid to pick RDF as a counter as you get to club them to death by shadowing their every move. 

 

Did WG intend this?

[CruleD]

The only "good" thing about this skill is you get to club folk who are either too noob or too stupid to pick RDF as a counter as you get to club them to death by shadowing their every move. 

 

Did WG intend this?

 

Of course they did, they said they are not stupid for implementing it.

P.S. The very first game I played with it (right at the start of battle after load screen) I laughed because I could see the enemy at the other end of map. I thought it had range.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

WG really do talk some crap too. Saying RDF won't be op in Ranked.

 

When both teams take a few loses RDF will become absolutely vital. You'd need folk equipped with it, I can see amazing losses next season because potatoes haven't specced this skill...

[celephais]

Back in WoT, the design philosophy was basically grind a bunch of tanks together until they more or less exploded each other out, and hope players found the brawling fun. For better or worse, WG has moved this philosophy, amongst numerous others, to WoWs without much change. Thus it is understandable that they would want ships to grind into and explode each other faster. The RPF skill is thus, as I take it, a solution not first and foremost to address issues with gameplay mechanics having to do with DDs, or any particular ship types at all, but a tentative move at refining gameplay direction as a whole.

 

The repercussions of this is the extinction of intelligent play. Utterly gone. Let me explain then why they know this and they are not bothered.

 

After all the negativity this skill got they started literally spewing excuses, dressed as arguments. "Yep, we heard you...". If you heard them, then you would comply, you would try to find a silver lining. That's the, "I heard you honey, i will stop screwing the waitress" and then they go on and screw her again. The honest thing would be, "Yep, i screw her but look, this is who i am. Would you prefer for me to be dishonest? Hypocritical? I couldn't live with myself".

 

This is a game breaking mechanic. This, was a jungle, now (with RPF) it is a contained environment and some ships are chained. I think i made my point ans it was very clear. They said this gives options.......no it does not, it is a one way street, the end. Everything they said afterwards is is saying, "We are the minority with the authority, we do whatever we want". If they would say that, i would actually shut up. But they go the Machiavellian way. I am sorry to say but they honestly do not want a very intelligent playerbase. And personally, they may be vey good web designers and programmers and artists even but ultimately, they are a bit idiotic in their behavior towards other people. Their interactions with others do not show much intelligence to me, they show that they want something. And personally i get away from elegantly terrifying things..

[celephais]

 

I agree, I enjoy the tactical element of it and if they remove some of the key options open to me while playing the game and herd me toward an all out click-fest gun battle then I'm off too. I'll test this out tonight after work and it I feel the game has been made worse off I'll most likely play my last game tonight, or at least until I get a better overall impression of whether I feel too forced to play the game the way they want me to play it. Maybe it won't be as bad as I anticipate, but if it is then I can't imagine hanging around. Not like they haven't been warned about it. Getting a little tired of them giving us hindsight excuses of stuff they knew would happen and then justifying it afterward with some feeble BS.

 

Let's hope for the best then, because I really enjoy the game. This is what it all boils down to doesn't it, our enjoyment of the game and whether it fills the brief of what we would like it to be. Changed too much, or dumbed down too much may signify the ultimate nail in the coffin. Time will tell, but if it turns out badly I'll not wait to hear their excuses when they revert it all.

 

​The game was built for intelligent thought out play but we now can see WG have changed their minds.

 

 

Reading KArmaQU it just hit me. Tactical play was an accident. They never meant to do it, it wasn't planned. It seems then, it was jsut unfinished and what we see now, with RPF, is the final product. So, their claims for not being "too casual", are also hypocritical. Well, to be blunt and honest, they are.

 

I already had one too many weird games at mid tiers were ppl just snipe from the other side of the earth and in general, everyone playing it safe. And as Flamu also noticed, there is a huge psychological factor here to take into account...One one game (one game because i already started playing fewer games per day) i was escorting a DD to a cap. Suddenly i see the DD a bit before we get into cap, turning away! I was so baffled for a sec. Then i see on my screen the "Located" icon pop up. This is it, isn't it? This is casual.

 

And listen, they could go, "Hm, maybe as an Upgrade Module, very specific for this ships role?", or after all the negativity in the 2nd round of PTS, "Hey, maybe it could function as a sonar, bleeping every 15 secs? Alright, let's see their reactions and adjust". Nope, no way Jose.

 

You know, i also see the brightness. This decision made me go back to other games i also find enjoyment. Atlas Reactor went F2P...The Division cost me 26Euro for base game and 1 DLC, that's a bargain for many hrs of gameplay right there.

[celephais]

I really do not want to see something like this RTF drama happen again, WG. Hire an ex diplomat or something.

 

Lastly, i really do not like promoting hypocrisy. Let them be what they are...

 

Secondly lastly...I will not bother again definitely. I liked being played by the Sasha Perovas of the world only...

[ColorsOfRainbows]

can i say i rly love this skill ?
i think its amazing its in the game now, and its just a minority that can cry rly loud that opens 20 threads that doesnt like it