Aug 24 Update on the Lightning Ballistics Affair

[Project45_Opytny]

I feel obliged to report the latest news about this affair that has now became such a disgrace, for the improvement of this game which I have devoted so much of my off-work enthusiasm on.

I agree with the argument that such an act should be considered as a much graver offense towards some of the most fundamental aspects of this game, than the premium contents aspect which ignited the already ongoing August protests. And as it is likely that WG got caught red-handed this time, we should take advantage of the already rife indigination to do something, help to restore Lightning's and Wakeful's gutted HE ballistics and check WG's arrogant top-down arbitrariness for this time.

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/8566484585

After confirming the existence of this problem with the help of a recorded battle replay of Lightning from 2019, Chinese WoWS gamer "maxp_share" contacted WG's customer support about this. WG's service personnel replied days later and blatantly denied that such a problem ever exists despite evidence was provided, and use the WG Wiki, in a form of circular argument, to "prove" that nothing is wrong at all.

(Edit: https://nga.178.com/read.php?tid=37461575&page=2&rand=502, discussion from NGA WoWS community in Chinese.)

Yet we have to continue to fight. Maybe retrieving WG's own development bulletins about British destroyer, had  they exist, may help?

Edited August 23, 2023 by Project45_Opytny

[Guest Capt_of_Satisfaction]

18 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Yet we have to continue to fight. Maybe retrieving WG's own development bulletins about British destroyer, had  they exist, may help?

You mean just nerfed, or after 2019???

Lightning is my favorite TT ship and I certainly hope it's not been recently nerfed.  I cannot read those links, sorry.

Fight for what?  You uncover proof they lied isn't going to do diddly my friend.  I'm sorry to say, they reserve the right to change any ship any time they so please.  Even premiums.  They've got that in the EULA and posted it on the site more than once.

Crusades against WG rarely ever work.  

 

[Project45_Opytny]

1 hour ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

You mean just nerfed, or after 2019???

Lightning is my favorite TT ship and I certainly hope it's not been recently nerfed.  I cannot read those links, sorry.

Fight for what?  You uncover proof they lied isn't going to do diddly my friend.  I'm sorry to say, they reserve the right to change any ship any time they so please.  Even premiums.  They've got that in the EULA and posted it on the site more than once.

Crusades against WG rarely never work.  

The change happened at some time earlier this year, around Patches 12.1 and 12.2.

I'm not sure, yet I think activism is better than allowing the bug/change to (again) slip away with the worst official responce of pretending the ballistic parameters with a MV of 774 m/s has never existed.

[Project45_Opytny]

11 hours ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

I'm sorry to say, they reserve the right to change any ship any time they so please.  Even premiums.  They've got that in the EULA and posted it on the site more than once.

Maybe this is just venting my frustration, but I think even if WG admits and belatedly publishes the ballistics change as an intentional move is still better than the current response of pretending that there's nothing wrong at all.

(Copied from the post from CN community.)

Not to say that this is contradictory with their stance that no balance changes has been applied to Lightning had someone manage to retrieve, if existing, originally and officially, thanks to some certain Mr. Roger Williams, published data of Lightning and Wakeful.

[Project45_Opytny]

Basing on the assumption that both official wikis uses a same method of extracting data from the game files, Mir Korabli (I know the former WoWS CIS Realm is now nominally a unrelated game) does not have the same unnoticed change/bug on both Lightning and Wakeful.

Note the correct MV of 774 m/s and fire-setting chance of 9%.

[New_Jersey_prpr]

12 hours ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

You mean just nerfed, or after 2019???

Lightning is my favorite TT ship and I certainly hope it's not been recently nerfed.  I cannot read those links, sorry.

Fight for what?  You uncover proof they lied isn't going to do diddly my friend.  I'm sorry to say, they reserve the right to change any ship any time they so please.  Even premiums.  They've got that in the EULA and posted it on the site more than once.

Crusades against WG rarely never work.  

 

If they think Lightning needs to be adjusted they can just publish a devblog or mention it in patch notes, nerfing it without informing players shouldn't be considered an appropriate move under any circumstances.

[Project45_Opytny]

Original dev blog published on Facebook about Lightning.

https://m.facebook.com/wowsdevblog/photos/a.1914529002206771/2098587440467592/?type=3

 

tHeRe wErE nO sUcH cHAnGeS lAtElY...

Edited August 24, 2023 by Project45_Opytny

[Project45_Opytny]

Current main battery data, screenshot from Wargaming Wiki's article on Lightning.

Original development blog from 2018 about then work-in-progress Lightning.

[Yedwy]

29 minutes ago, New_Jersey_prpr said:

If they think Lightning needs to be adjusted they can just publish a devblog or mention it in patch notes, nerfing it without informing players shouldn't be considered an appropriate move under any circumstances.

Exactly and thats the whole point, nobody denies WG the right to balance ships in their own way (we can agree or disagree with their descisons though) but doing a "ninja nerf" thats sonething else entirely... In the past people outed claims about "ninja nerfs" but were ussually laughed at or couldnt provide any proof and WG either denied it or played stoopid but this time it seems they got caught with the hand in the cookie jar

[Project45_Opytny]

Just now, Yedwy said:

Exactly and thats the whole point, nobody denies WG the right to balance ships in their own way (we can agree or disagree with their descisons though) but doing a "ninja nerf" thats sonething else entirely... In the past people outed claims about "ninja nerfs" but were ussually laughed at or couldnt provide any proof and WG either denied it or played stoopid but this time it seems they got caught with the hand in the cookie jar

Thanks, that's the entire point of all these posts.

We manage to confirm an unpublished and performance-breaking nerf by comparing current data with recorded battle replays and even the initial development blog instead of claims of "trust me bro that I feel..." which just cannot distance themselves from subjective illusion and/or conspiracy theory.

And with much of the playerbase already in indignation, it's a good time to pursue and demand a proper answer from WG.

[Guest Capt_of_Satisfaction]

Thanks for clearing that up.  I wanted to make sure this didn’t happen within a few days.  
 

The point remains, they reserve the right to be able to change the ship any time they please. Normally we are informed, but in this case, I have no idea why the subterfuge.  
 

Sure, you can lobby WG for some sort of transparency on the matter, or you can lobby to get a reversal. Good luck with that!
 

I can guarantee you you are wasting your time.  Best of luck on that.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, New_Jersey_prpr said:

If they think Lightning needs to be adjusted they can just publish a devblog or mention it in patch notes, nerfing it without informing players shouldn't be considered an appropriate move under any circumstances.

If WG considered the initial values as a bug, they have in the past buried the bug fix in the patch notes on a separate webpage...and the text would usually read something like 'fixed a bug on this ships artillery performance'.

This is how they nerfed Mikasa one time, by reducing her secondary gun firing angles by claiming they were fixing a bug.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Project45_Opytny]

August 26 Update:

Yes, we have managed to achieve something!

(Alledged) WG staff (Discord moderator?) admitting that something has indeed gone wrong regarding Lightning and further actions will be (soon™) taken.

And for my personal "crusade",

Quote

ON HOLD

Hello Commander,
Thank you for contacting Wargaming Support.
 
We need more time to resolve your request. We apologize for any inconvenience this can cause.
 
We will get back to you as soon as possible. Until then, I have to ask you to be patient.
 
Best regards,

(Customer service personnel)

It seems that with the help of other complaints as well as the attached official development blog from 2018, the staff realized that it's no longer possible to flat out deny the existence of this problem.

Anyway thanks to the previous attempt, it seems that I managed to get a bit further, regardless of how minute the advance may be.

Then I would like to follow and see how soon will this be fixed and will the fix also cover Wakeful.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Project45_Opytny

[Wolfswetpaws]

Great work.  Good luck.  

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Then I would like to follow and see how soon will this be fixed and will the fix also cover Wakeful.

Bear in mind the 'fix' may merely be a statement that the original values were a bug that needed to be changed...

...or that the change was unintended, but they like it where it is now.

Be prepared for these potential responses.

[Project45_Opytny]

The personal crusade comes to a conclusion on 1 September.

Quote

CLOSED

Hello Commander,

We are sorry for making you wait for our answer for so long.

 

We carefully checked the data and found out that there is an a error in Lighting and Wakeful HE shells characteristics .

The information was sent to our specialists, the bug will be fixed in the future updates.

 

We thank you for your attentions to such details in the game.

 

Best regards,

(Customer Service Personnel)

Someone managed to explain that the bug is likely the result of careless handling of a previous coding shortcut: Lightning and Wakeful "take reference" from one same set of shell charactistics from the in-game database. Then Stord was added, referencing to the same entry of the database and there seems to be an internal discussion on whether Stord should use the "new" British 120-mm ballistics or the "classic" British 120-mm ballistics. The "classic" balistics was finally chosen, and some inept programmers changed the entire database entry rather than making a more proper edition.

Unfortunately however, when the reply was finally made, the player sending that Customer Support Ticket is engulfed by the shock of reading about the news and discussions about how a group of long-desired balance changes would (likely) end up as Russian-exclusive after already confirmed facts that "Global" server players are paying more for worse contents like chain bundle gambling comparing with the Russian Mir Korabli.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Project45_Opytny

[Nevermore135]

7 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Someone managed to explain that the bug is likely the result of careless handling of a previous coding shortcut: Lightning and Wakeful "take reference" from one same set of shell charactistics from the in-game database. Then Stord was added, referencing to the same entry of the database and there seems to be an internal discussion on whether Stord should use the "new" British 120-mm ballistics or the "classic" British 120-mm ballistics. The "classic" balistics was finally chosen, and some inept programmers changed the entire database entry rather than making a more proper edition.

This is pretty much what I suspected. Over the years there have been lots of tales of WG’s “spaghetti” code causing these types of unintended bugs. Thankfully it looks like WG’s fix for this is to (eventually) revert Lightning and Wakeful HE shells back to their original, intended ballistics.

[Yedwy]

6 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

 Thankfully it looks like WG’s fix for this is to (eventually) revert Lightning and Wakeful HE shells back to their original, intended ballistics.

Did they actually state that in any official shape or form? If not wel...

[Nevermore135]

14 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

Did they actually state that in any official shape or form? If not wel...

They stated as such in the copied response from CS in the post I quoted. That’s the best we’re going to get until we see (or do not see) the correction in the change log of an upcoming patch.

6 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Quote

CLOSED

Hello Commander,

We are sorry for making you wait for our answer for so long.

 

We carefully checked the data and found out that there is an a error in Lighting and Wakeful HE shells characteristics .

The information was sent to our specialists, the bug will be fixed in the future updates.

 

We thank you for your attentions to such details in the game.

 

Best regards,

(Customer Service Personnel)

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Yedwy]

1 minute ago, Nevermore135 said:

They stated as such in the copied response from CS in the post I quoted. That’s the best we’re going to get until we see (or do not see) the correction in the change log of an upcoming patch.

 

So they didnt, CS reply is used as a toilet paper in corpo HQ

[Nevermore135]

3 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

So they didnt, CS reply is used as a toilet paper in corpo HQ

This is what I said:

6 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

Thankfully it looks like WG’s fix for this is to (eventually) revert Lightning and Wakeful HE shells back to their original, intended ballistics.

Which it does based on the response from CS. And as I just pointed out, this is the best we are going to get until the change either happens or doesn’t in the next patch or two. This type of stuff isn’t advertised otherwise.

So we wait and see.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Nevermore135

[pew_pew_magoo]

I’m trying follow what you are talking about. So 2 ships have improved ballistics sometimes and you guys are miffed because WG didn’t address the problem quickly enough? 

[Nevermore135]

14 minutes ago, pew_pew_magoo said:

I’m trying follow what you are talking about. So 2 ships have improved ballistics sometimes and you guys are miffed because WG didn’t address the problem quickly enough? 

As someone who has been watching these developments from the outside, my take on this is:

1) These two ships were changed without the change being published in the patch notes. There is no reason WG couldn’t change these ships if they wished, of course, but the change was not listed in the changelogs. Whether it was an intentional unannounced change or a bug, this is the kind of things that players should ask WG about.

2) When this was reported to CS or raised in the WoWs Discord, it was met with denials that any change had occurred in the first place (see this thread and the thread linked in the OP).

3) It wasn’t elevated to someone who was willing to actually listen and take the observations seriously until one of the volunteers on the the WoWs Discord checked themselves (using old replay data) and kicked it up the chain.

Now CS has appeared to acknowledge the change as an unintended bug after previous denials that anything occurred in the first place. People are annoyed that it took someone at WG this long to take the claims seriously and actually acknowledge the issue.

[pew_pew_magoo]

Sounds like it was just a bug that WG didn’t know about. This is just my take on what you guys have said, but seems to me like players are making mountains out of mole hills.  Now I am pretty new, but it comes off as pretty laughable.  

[Nevermore135]

26 minutes ago, pew_pew_magoo said:

Sounds like it was just a bug that WG didn’t know about.

I don’t think anyone is annoyed that the bug existed or that WG didn’t know about it. That kind of thing happens quite often.

It was raised repeatedly and those raising the issue where repeatedly told that not only was there no bug, but that no change had occurred at all and the two ships had always had their current characteristics. They were basically given the run-around until someone who was affiliated with WG (a volunteer moderator on the WoWs Discord) actually took the claims seriously and bothered to investigate themselves (without any of WG’s resources, I might add, but by just comparing easily accessible replay footage). That’s not how the system is supposed to work.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Nevermore135