Uglesett

Well, that's sort of the point I'm trying to make. It doesn't seem like WG want to know what people think of the CV rework, because they fear it'll be unpleasant and they'd rather stick their heads in the sand. Unfortunately, that's the kind of attitude that has killed many products and companies over the years. It doesn't help what WG does and does not like. Since they're not in the luxurious position of being able to make art for its own sake, but rather are purveyors of a commercial entertainment product, what's important is to make something that their customers like. I'd swap the first two ones around.

Well... you know, they don't need to spend two years on another rework... they have a working system in the archives

It's entirely possible to design more detailed questionnaires that can discern what any given respondent thinks is/isn't fun about any given subject. And when aggregated, these answers can tell you something about which direction you need to go in order to make a weak design into a success. Whereas observed behaviour without context tells you nothing of what direction you should be taking your design. I mean, consumer polling isn't exactly sorcery. It's a pretty well developed science, with techniques for mitigating the inevitable troll answers and getting useful information about current and future behaviour. For one thing, it's not nearly impossible. Any number of companies and consumer interest organizations do this all the time. As I said, it's a pretty well established science. As for why spend money on it: Because knowing what proportion of your customer base likes and dislikes which aspects of your product can help you keep and grow that customer base. This stuff is "Marketing 101".

That's my point. They have the framework in place. So they should bloody well use it to actually gather opinions on the post-CV rework gameplay rather than annoying us with questionnaires for the marketing department. I have seen multiple polls, but the later ones have never felt relevant to the actual development of the game. Because right now their credibility is hanging by a thin and rapidly fraying thread. If the CV rework is actually as well received as WG claim it is, then they should communicate this in a concrete manner, not just vague PR statements that basically just sound like someone who's been told not to share an unpleasant truth. The latter. Right now, everything about WG's behaviour suggests that they are sticking their heads in the sand and don't want to hear whether their effort was worth it or wasted. And sure, being told that your work is bad and you should feel bad is never nice, but it's some times necessary. It just looks so much as if WG have stumbled completely in the sunk cost fallacy, and just don't want to get the feedback that verifies that this is the case.

Well, if they did, then: a) I certainly haven't seen anything of it, if anyone else has then please enlighten me. b) They do an absolute shite job of communicating the results (possibly because they're thoroughly embarrasing).

Permanent module destruction to me always felt like a pointless nod to realism in a game that otherwise doesn't give much of a about realism. Something that seemed like a good idea at the time, but now only adds meaningless randomness and irritation to the game. I suspect nobody here would feel it was a loss if they never had to go through another game with a destroyed torpedo launcher on their torpedo focused DD or a destroyed turret on their Richelieu/Richelieu mk II.

It'd probably help if WG actually put some effort into finding out exactly what the user base felt about the CV rework... I mean, they have the framework for putting polls into place, but the last one I got was about pointless BS like what kind of music I like...

While I'm still cheesed off that Harekaze wasn't put on sale one last time before the collaboration ended, there's not much that can be done about that. As I said, I'm tentatively interested, but we'll see how she ends up eventually. I'm certainly not going to go "shut up and take my money" as soon as she's released. While the meme torps look fun, I would be a lot more optimistic if she at least got a choice of torpedo modules. And it's not as if premiums with alternative modules are a new concept, e.g. Anshan.

This is silly. There are so many separate aspects to the CV rework and which other elements of the game it affects. Trying to contain so many sub-discussions to one single thread just means that they drown each other and the thread becomes impossible to keep track of. Many of the threads that have been closed concerned specific aspects of the CV rework, and trying to repost points made in those threads here just means that they'll be taken out of their context and make no sense. The simple fact of the matter is that the CV rework is a major, disruptive and, frankly, failed change to the game that affects multiple aspects of other classes. Of course it's going to dominate the discussion forum for the foreseeable future. But that is the nature of customer interaction channels like this forum, and it is just something the people running them will have to deal with. If WG wants to contain CV discussion, they should make a separate forum for CV-related threads. Because a single thread is never going to cut it. Now, with that said, I'll just repost some of my points made in threads that were closed (and frankly, should be reopened) so that they can be forgotten in their proper place instead: (Makes perfect sense out of its original context, doesn't it?)

Personally I'm not a massive fan of the anime captains, but whatever provides bouyancy to your battleship. I am, however tentatively interested in the Yukikaze, should it turn out to be a decent IJN premium DD. in' weeb Pretty sure I saw Casablanca first, mainly because I grew up with only the public broadcasting channel (none of that fancy satellite or cable tv here), which meant that you bloody well watched what was on the telly or you didn't watch anything at all! That said, when it comes to interests I don't think either of us is particularly representative of the average member of our age bracket.

I suspect if you poll people aged 30-ish and below, far more will have seen Akira or Ghost in the Shell than Casablanca....

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. I prefer 7zip, tbh.

The Internet has failed me, because I can't for the life of me find a video clip of just PC Bob Walker from Hot Fuzz saying "Tits." (for reference)

But 379 is significantly less than 478... And for that matter, 4 flak bursts is less than 5. I definitely wouldn't call it a buff, possibly a sidegrade depending on situation. I suspect it's a net nerf, at least where self defense is concerned.

How popular was the Shimakaze again?

I seriously doubt there are many cases where an extra 15 DPS between 1.9 and 3.5 km outweighs the loss of 109 DPS below 1.9 Maybe it helps a bit against Japanese torpedo bombers, but that's very marginal at best.

Well, to build on my comment here, one solution is to make maneuvering great again. Basically, make it worthwhile to actually bother to try to evade attacks. And the way to do that is to get the reworked carriers to behave more like the RTS CVs: Single strike per flight (which means more alpha damage), but slower planes and longer turnaround between strikes. Make losses before the attack happens actually count for something, and make it worth taking the risk of showing broadside if it means you evade a strike.

I remember and... I didn't really mind them. I certainly wasn't anywhere near as annoyed at RTS CVs as I am at the reworked ones. And much as people like to talk about viewing the past with rose tinted glasses, the corollary is that a lot of people tend to exaggerate just how bad it actually was. Yes, occasionally you ended up in a game where your team's CV was an utter potato and the other was a super unicum who deleted ships with every strike, but those games were fewer and further between than we tend to think. And what I liked about the RTS CVs was that you felt you had some sensible room for counter play. Clever maneuvering before you saw the strike coming in coupled with some wasd hax when the planes were committed could often mean that the enemy CV whiffed their strike, and that was satisfying. Even if you didn't directly damage the enemy CV or even shoot down any of their planes, knowing that you'd just made them waste significant time and effort on a failed strike had its own element of satisfaction to it. And by the time a follow up strike could be launched, you'd have time to reposition significantly and seek assistance from your team. Heck, you could even get some actually useful assistance from your own team's CV in many cases. Whereas with the reworked CVs? Ok, so you dodge two torpedoes. The next ones will be coming in ten seconds. And even after all flights are spent, it's maybe thirty seconds before a new wave of planes arrives. And the damage from any individual flight is so low that it doesn't seem worth it to try to evade them. Often you risk taking more damage by showing broadside while evading than you will from the attack itself, so you might as well just keep sailing and take a couple of torps. The entire cat-and-mouse game that made playing against RTS CVs at least somewhat satisfying is completely gone. You're basically just gambling on the attacker happening to eat some flak bursts, which at least buys you some reprieve before the next round of "Death by paper cuts - the game".

I suspect I somewhat annoyed @22cm by repeatedly setting fire to his Colorado earlier tonight

However, getting killed in a stupid attempt to do so is not.

Eh. Not really. Much as I love my little potatofarming trolibote, her torpedo spread means that she isn't really much use past about 12 km range. And she's not really fast enough to do a good job at running after higher tier CVs.

Eeeeh. Not always, but in case of BBs it's generally true. DDs can some times benefit from shorter gun range, because it decreases the number of enemies that can see and shoot them.