PST Time 00:00:00GMT-8
Local Server Time 00:00:00GMT+8
ID
Password
FlashGuide
FlashGuide
HA Infomation

General Discussion
Forum Quick Menu

  Index

  • EBB - January 2015

    01. 20. 2015 18:35


Rehor

Content in second.

 

  • Re : EBB - January 2015

    01. 25. 2015 04:57


CNR4806

Originally Posted by leafonline

Originally Posted by SysT3ms

¿Test team or development team (game owners)? Please start calling things correctly.

For me this patch is disrespectful to our community

BB6

I don´t know if this changes will improve the game or not, but I cannot understand why 9+2 guys should change completly the game.

Players spent time, money and effort to research one particular nation, prepare crews specifically (+-engies, Tgunners or not, +- reload/acc, etc) for a Charlemagne, Amagi or whatever with have its own special caracteristics, now you change this ships and maybe all this effort has no sense for many player.

Test team for me means, people who works to fix errors, issues and improve slightly few details.

Next time you want change completly one ship, please, change also the ship name.

It is not about it will be better or worse, the fact is that you changed OUR ships.

EBB6

With new ships do whatever you want (as Development Team), but again, please, do it well. First define (and even better if explain) a concept (maybe asking in the forum), develop all looking at this concept, finish the work, test and when everything is ok, give people chance to purchase it, no more changes at least not big ones.

If you are not sure about new EBBs maybe SDE could give them for free few weeks, all players play, more feedbacks, last changes, all this free ships dissapear from accounts and then players could purchase final version, knowing exactly what they are buying.


I don´t want to attack at Development Team, I know most of them do their best but I think it cannot be the right way to improve the game and promote loyalty between players and this game.

Best regards



I can't agree more. No matter how things should be applied to the ships we have already had and played for years, it's the problem of the development team. Players should NOT pay for the mistakes they made. Making change to the ships is easy for them, but it could take us months of effort and tons of money, which is not acceptable.

The same argument can be used on everything that gets hit by patches.

It doesn't make the nerfs, buffs and overhauls any less justified. Sure, it sucks to be hit by a nerf bat, but in many cases it's a necessary evil to fix things that are clearly overpowered, underpowered or in a bizarre mix of both, and I think NF's test team is doing a much better job than a certain FPS that I'm playing, where the devs massively overbuff and/or overnerf things, then turn around and reverse course and overbuff/overnerf whatever that was nerfed/buffed in an neverending cycle that pleases absolutely nobody.

I place my trust on the NF test team, which has, over the years, shown that they know what they're doing (at least most of the time) and have been rebalancing the game with great caution.

  • Re : EBB - January 2015

    01. 25. 2015 10:17


angus725

Originally Posted by Sumi808
Angus you have gotten me curious - could you please elaborate on your points by explaining in more detail as sylx and rehor have


Oh, before I say anything, I have a different view of the direction of balance than the current test team; so even if I'm correct in some ways, it may not be what the test team would want to do.

Originally Posted by angus725
I must say, congrats on making BB6 tier the most boring tier of BBs to have ever existed.


Really impressed with the changes, gameplay has never been slower, and people have never been more afraid of turning in to get one-shotted.

 

Dynamic gameplay is created when there is change in line battles. By micromanagement tricks, or by strategical choices, lines should be able to be broken, and advances/retreats should happen in a meaningful way.

Where this happens most is in low tier battles, CL-CA-BB1234, where ships are fast, relatively diffucult to sink due to damage-health ratios, and have a large range of damage, spread, gun placements, and so forth.

While it makes sense for the BB6 tier to be the slowest in speed, the reduction in turnrate implies that dodging is more diffucult, and "turning in" more risky. Combine the two, you have a problem where rushes are discouraged, and high-risk play is also discouraged.

IMO, high risk play should have a reasonable reward as well. An example of that where it does work, is L1 and the PoW before the introduction of BB6 tier. L2 and QV can potentially have that ability, but rarely is it done, as they have distanced themselves from the damage/speed/health/etc ratios of the previous tiers. I don't find extremes in balance over/under powered, rather, I find that they are better able to fill niches that currently do not exist (or are very blurry) in the BB6 tier.

(on a side note, in theory, MN should have filled the gap where UK SW left during balance patches, but it seems that there are still various issues with MN that prevent that from happening.)

Risky, high-speed play makes games exciting. If you make the risk/reward ratio to very high risk for low reward, the game fundamentally encourages mistake-driven stalemates, rather than risk-driven dynamic play.

Originally Posted by angus725

Also really enjoy the new BB/CV hybrid, it's usefulness is unheard of,  it's just like the beloved Ise CV and Mogami CVs, truely useful in both functions when they're not banned from BB, CV (or CA) rooms.
 


It's neigh impossible to micromanage both a reasonable amount of planes, and a battleship on the line of battle. Even if it is possible, you're still faced with the problem that your support crew will be worse due to splitting between reps/engies and pilots. The few cases where such a hybrid is useful for, (jokingly, CV and BB only rooms, where a hybrid would defeat the purpose of such), in very small battles, BB+CV combos should in theory defeat a team of hybrids (details that could fit into an entire new thread), in larger rooms, the same problem exists as their functions would be better served with a combination of BBs+CVs. 

Great, you have a new unique ship at the highest tier. Unfortunate it's impossible to balance into a useful ship as seen by Ise/Mogami CVs because how NF works.

Originally Posted by angus725
I really didn't think you guys could fit 14 unique ships into the BB6 tier, but it seems like you guys did it. Small variations in DP, reload, damage, really make the ships feel balanced. I wish the BB4s was like this too, there is way too much variation in that tier for it to possibly be balanced, you have actual threats from armor whores, worth while speed whores, and all sorts of ranges and damages.
 

BB6s don't feel unique; they feel like the same ship with a bunch of variables slightly changed. You take a few steps back to BB3/4, and you'll notice that different gun configurations and national advantages will be over-done, and allows for all sorts of interesting meta-games. BB5s already suffered from this problem, and the new round of balance changes made the ships have even less interesting niches.

Originally Posted by angus725
Love,
Angus
 

I don't actually play the game much anymore; so my opinion is more "food-for-thougth" than actual balance advice.

(I also have a large number of people who'd rather I not have an opinion on balance issues as well) 

  • Re : EBB - January 2015

    01. 25. 2015 10:40


jacopo

Take a look at this example:

A game such as World of Warcraft keeps things mixed up at every expansion as they change everything around. Given they take abilities away from players and introduce new ones, it keeps the game fresh. At the start of every new expansion, players are pissed because they have to re-learn how to play their class. But as time goes on, they adapt and learn their strengths and weaknesses.

It has taken a number of years, but NF has finally been able to do this very same thing.

Personally I wouldnt mind seeing a rotation of ships being nerfed and buffed every year or 2. It will change things up and keep them fresh. 

  • Re : EBB - January 2015

    01. 25. 2015 11:37


AlexCaboose

Originally Posted by leafonline

Originally Posted by SysT3ms

¿Test team or development team (game owners)? Please start calling things correctly.

For me this patch is disrespectful to our community

BB6

I don´t know if this changes will improve the game or not, but I cannot understand why 9+2 guys should change completly the game.

Players spent time, money and effort to research one particular nation, prepare crews specifically (+-engies, Tgunners or not, +- reload/acc, etc) for a Charlemagne, Amagi or whatever with have its own special caracteristics, now you change this ships and maybe all this effort has no sense for many player.

Test team for me means, people who works to fix errors, issues and improve slightly few details.

Next time you want change completly one ship, please, change also the ship name.

It is not about it will be better or worse, the fact is that you changed OUR ships.

EBB6

With new ships do whatever you want (as Development Team), but again, please, do it well. First define (and even better if explain) a concept (maybe asking in the forum), develop all looking at this concept, finish the work, test and when everything is ok, give people chance to purchase it, no more changes at least not big ones.

If you are not sure about new EBBs maybe SDE could give them for free few weeks, all players play, more feedbacks, last changes, all this free ships dissapear from accounts and then players could purchase final version, knowing exactly what they are buying.


I don´t want to attack at Development Team, I know most of them do their best but I think it cannot be the right way to improve the game and promote loyalty between players and this game.

Best regards



I can't agree more. No matter how things should be applied to the ships we have already had and played for years, it's the problem of the development team. Players should NOT pay for the mistakes they made. Making change to the ships is easy for them, but it could take us months of effort and tons of money, which is not acceptable.



How does it cost you anything?

  • Re : EBB - January 2015

    01. 25. 2015 11:51


Sidley711
What an interesting thread and one of the very few that gets broken down into a flame filled list of hate that eventually gets locked. In terms of play I currently don't have any of the BB6 's, but I do have a question about the PBB. I understand that they were probably nerfed to bring them into line with Nation and tier standard. My question is why is the KM AD and the RM AD diffenert from each other as well as the US and SN Sevastopol being different? Doesn't stand to reason that they are the same ship with identical stats? The UK Dunk has the same stats as the MN dunk?

  • Re : EBB - January 2015

    01. 27. 2015 20:57


jselcano

Originally Posted by Pyrofiend

You can't ask the mass majority of NF players what they would like the new ships to be like because there are a surprisingly large number of players like Mpapadores that would like to see the California have BB6 guns (just one specific example). There are so many players that don't even understand how to play or even setup current ships correctly that asking them how to balance content would be pretty pointless.



I--for one--want the Amagi with QV guns. Canz I?

  • Re : EBB - January 2015

    01. 28. 2015 22:41


CNR4806

Originally Posted by jselcano

Originally Posted by Pyrofiend

You can't ask the mass majority of NF players what they would like the new ships to be like because there are a surprisingly large number of players like Mpapadores that would like to see the California have BB6 guns (just one specific example). There are so many players that don't even understand how to play or even setup current ships correctly that asking them how to balance content would be pretty pointless.



I--for one--want the Amagi with QV guns. Canz I?

You sure you don't want Charlie guns for a 20-gun broadside of doom?

  • Re : EBB - January 2015

    01. 29. 2015 01:54


joris92

@testteam I just did some range tests with a Kaiser and it seems that the P24 has almost identical range. I wonder why you have chosen to increase the range of this BB6, because I found it pre patch already a beast in line fights. I think the range buff is unneeded and only makes it overpowered. Would suggest to bring it down to its old range, wasn't that similar with Nebraska?

  • Re : EBB - January 2015

    02. 04. 2015 16:20


Benser33

Range post-patch is being monitored.

  • Re : EBB - January 2015

    02. 06. 2015 01:03


joris92

Originally Posted by Benser33

Range post-patch is being monitored.



Thanks Benser, Richard already told me too^^

1 2 3 4 5