Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
antean

Quick study of CV Carriers: Changes to Tech Trees, Upgrades, etc (recent News Release Pinned Thread)

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[IRON7]
Players
600 posts
351 battles

A quick examination & report for the Forum folks who commented;

213 responses divided into four categories: For, Against, Questions & Other

(Clearly) For (the CV proposed changes): 7 (& there were, at least, two who responded more than once here)

(Clearly) Against (the proposed CV changes): 129 (& there were a number of repeat responders here - I did not keep as close a track as I should have)

Question(s): 18 responders who had genuine questions about some aspect of this discussion

Other (Indeterminate): 59 responders who made neutral comments/tried to answer questions/ could not readily be determined to be For or Against

Total: 213

Results;

77 responders who either discussed various points and/or had questions about these proposals (a number of reasons here, not all the same). Indicates some confusion (of information)

129 Against the topic proposals for one reason or another. This is over one half of all the respondents.

7 For versus 129 Against. An overwhelming repudiation of the whole idea of altering CVs & their tech trees as proposed.

Essentially, 96% (roughly) are against the whole CV rework proposal to a bare 4% who agree/see no problem.

Oh sure, WoWS management, there won't be any problems with the proposed CV changes. Not one problem. ROFL

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I401]
Beta Tester
1,008 posts
8,072 battles

And there is your 4% carrier population, perfect russian rework comrade!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,435 posts
13,843 battles

The forum doesn't represent the entirety of the playerbase. WG doesn't care about us. What they care about is the opinion of the average potato, aka the largest part of the playerbase. If they say the rework is fine, it's gonna go through.

 

Highly amusing to watch them dig their own graves tho.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
600 posts
351 battles
1 hour ago, kfa said:

there is your 4% carrier population

it was around 96% against - whether that is the 4% CV population is another question (but I don't think so as some non-CV players were against, as well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
600 posts
351 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

What they care about is the opinion of the average potato

Apparently (or is it some 'potato' opinion management team at WoWS?).

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Highly amusing to watch them dig their own graves tho.

Here, I'd have to disagree. It's sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
5,139 posts
5,079 battles

You do realize that 129 votes is nothing - and statistically completely irrelevant? If your intention really was to gather the playerbase’s opinion (which I would question given your comments on the other thread) you would have needed a much larger sample. 

 

Anyway - I can see why the rework creates such emotional reactions. But I don’t think this will change anything 

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
600 posts
351 battles
10 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

You do realize that 129 votes is nothing

First time I've ever seen 129 = 0. What math regime is that, Major Koenig? & why 129? Why not 128 or 130? (or some other 'rabbit' pulled out of your hat?)

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC-DK]
Players
2,066 posts
23,555 battles
13 minutes ago, antean said:

First time I've ever seen 129 = 0. What math regime is that, Major Koenig? & why 129? Why not 128 or 130? (or some other 'rabbit' pulled out of your hat?)

Right now there is roughly 25.000 online on the server and you think 129 matters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AS13]
Players
1,874 posts
2,034 battles

I'd say give the CVs some anti-submarine capability, let loose the subs, and let them play with each other.... 

(just oiling the fire a bit... tadadumtadadom) :Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,435 posts
13,843 battles
24 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I'd say give the CVs some anti-submarine capability

 

No worries, ASW is being considered for the 2nd branch of CVs if they choose to implement subs.

Quote

So what's the plan?


Here's where it gets interesting, as there are many options to choose from.


Obviously we haven't spent months modelling these odd-tier carriers just to scrap them. At the moment we intend to transition them into second carrier branches of aircraft carriers with alternate gameplay styles - another way to influence the battle, a different approach to claiming victory for you and your team, as well as different interactions with allies and enemies. There are a lot of different options here: they could do a little less damage and assist their allies more instead in different ways like spotting enemies or through other advanced capabilities which were abundant with aircraft. It's possible that some types of aircraft in such alternative branches would be able to set smoke screens, saving heavily damaged ships from destruction. They might also be able to help allied battleships with putting out fires, or even land on water and capture objectives. Aircraft might even have something in their arsenal to help combat submarines should that ever become necessary.

 

Source:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/world-of-warships-development-blog/odd-tiered-aircraft-carriers/2231809417145393/

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
5,139 posts
5,079 battles
1 hour ago, antean said:

First time I've ever seen 129 = 0. What math regime is that, Major Koenig? & why 129? Why not 128 or 130? (or some other 'rabbit' pulled out of your hat?)

 

You wrote: 213 responses 129 voted against, Mr Rabbit 

 

And 213 responses don’t give any meaningful picture and therefore your post is just another whine thread. Your reaction emphasizes that unfortunately.

 

cheers 

 

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AS13]
Players
1,874 posts
2,034 battles
2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

No worries, ASW is being considered for the 2nd branch of CVs if they choose to implement subs.

 Hahahah :Smile_teethhappy: What IF... I know they will. 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOATY]
Players
550 posts
8,583 battles

How many topics did you created? 

 

Anyway 200 participated in a biased poll from how many players total? 

 

The carrier rework is a compliment from WG to people who like this broken class instead of scraping them totally out of the game and solving the game play experience of the 99% of the total population. 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×