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

Just in you WG Devs and Co are under any illusions where the dislike is with this game is for new players.

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
553 posts
3,478 battles

Take a look at the top 2 ships of each team. Anything wrong with that? No? The whole "risk vs reward" concept wash over you guys at WG? Balance in a game was washed overboard at the WG directors table too? That's where the game is at and why it's about as much fun to be part of a battle like this with these carriers involved as a getting a kick in the nuts over and over. You think that's bad? Now imagine 3 per team, and ya, they be top 3 on each team too but moving forwards if I'm dumb enough to play a slower class of ship like a BB(which is so sad and pathetic I should have to avoid playing this otherwise appealing and iconic class)and I get focused on be carruers I'm just going to exit the battle, I'm not going to be some guys fun pinata that I can't counter, it's just not good for a persons health to endure those sorts of experiences where you're getting slapped around with your hands tied behind your back. With these carriers what you have is a spotter and a yolo destroyer all in one only where a destroyer would get killed off quickly for making such a raid against a ship, all that's lost for a carrier is a few respawning aircraft so where the destroyer player is dead and back at port the carrier is laughing his as* off and launching what's effectively another high speed airborn destroyer over and over.... and over again. Are you dumb honestly? Maybe things get better at higher tiers I wouldn't know I'm just a new player but their ain't no forking want in me to find out! That's the experience and feedback of a new player. Keep burying your head in the sand though, I'm sure that will double and triple the playerbase. 

 

K5fw70O.jpg

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
463 posts
1,490 battles

or there's this:

 

2076756681_WorldofWarships11_08_201916_38_00.thumb.png.c8bcb044f4b91f8a6802f726bc52f732.png

 

If you run into a good CV player (you know who you are...) then you're toast but the vast majority are no better than the rest of us......

 

:cap_popcorn:

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Beta Tester
1,234 posts
6,357 battles

It is a game decision by WarGaming to lower the skill ceiling by removing player controls and adding more automation to the game. WarGaming isn't making this game for the competitive players, but for those that enjoy sailing around in a warship while doing some pew pew. 
With that in mind it is only logical that we have this kind of CV rework and subs with homing torpedoes coming up. The public they are aiming for just want to enjoy the cinematic effects with easy controls to hit some other ships as well. This game can never be an e-sport game, because the gameplay is super slow, so their income has to come from the ship fanatics.

Sure, you can get super frustrated over the fact that WarGaming is dumbing down the game, but on the other hand you can't do anything about it. If it really bothers you that much it is better that you start playing another game.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
9,850 posts
11,562 battles
1 hour ago, Sir_Sinksalot said:

That's the experience and feedback of a new player. Keep burying your head in the sand though, I'm sure that will double and triple the playerbase. 

WoWs saturated its niche market years ago, everyone even remotely interested in boats heard or played WoWs. And WG tried even paying live cash for recruiting new players, which failed miserably.

 

And then you have glorious CV REEEwork, which can't be balanced without screwing one or the other. And after more than half a year of swinging pendulum back and forth, it stopped at CV side, as when it was on other side CV playerbase went back in numbers to pre rework values, jeopardizing whole endeavor:cap_book: That and balancing fuckups like Hosho, Enterprise and (almost there) Kaga.

 

And I'm afraid you're in the illusion, if you think WG even pretends to care about "player feedback".

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,792 posts
7,088 battles
20 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

It is a game decision by WarGaming to lower the skill ceiling by removing player controls and adding more automation to the game.

There is the underlying problem, but then again as it's seen and shown time and time again that is only 50% of the issue the other 50% is the masses of people today who want everything in easy "click once and win mode", and since the minority of the players who like complex and a challenging game cant give the same profit as the masses, well as a company WG leans in the direction that provides the most cashflow.

I'll go now :Smile_hiding: 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
13,781 posts
19,478 battles
1 hour ago, Molly_Delaney said:

If you run into a good CV player (you know who you are...) then you're toast but the vast majority are no better than the rest of us......

 

But doesn't that mean the fundamental problem of better CV = disproportionately higher chance of winning remains the same as before the rework, aka the rework is a failure? :cap_hmm:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
463 posts
1,490 battles

yes, but a good CV player should be able to dominate the match, just as in WW2 where the carrier dominated.

Aircraft can out spot surface ships and it was only the value placed on pilots which mitigated their advantage.

 

In any naval battle the one who knows where the enemy is has the advantage of controlling the engagement.

  • Bad 3
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
642 posts
9,895 battles
27 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

But doesn't that mean the fundamental problem of better CV = disproportionately higher chance of winning remains the same as before the rework, aka the rework is a failure? :cap_hmm:

You predicted that before I left the game (February) and upon now returning to the game in August, it transpires you were spot-on.

I seem to remember a few others also predicting the problems, shame none of them work at WG.

 

15 minutes ago, Molly_Delaney said:

yes, but a good CV player should be able to dominate the match, just as in WW2 where the carrier dominated.

Aircraft can out spot surface ships and it was only the value placed on pilots which mitigated their advantage.

 

In any naval battle the one who knows where the enemy is has the advantage of controlling the engagement.


You are confusing and conflating History with Gameplay.

As it is a game, no single ship or ship-type should dominate... but a team that works together, should.

If a ship, or ship-type, IS too dominant, then it needs to go....as they have already done with numerous OP indivdiual ships (mostly/too some degree)

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
9,850 posts
11,562 battles
6 minutes ago, Starchy_Tuber said:

I seem to remember a few others also predicting the problems, shame none of them work at WG.

I might remember wrong, but back in the World of Tanks day, someone put one of most prominent (Russian) streamers/community contributors in charge of tank balancing. Lets say "heavy armor meta" followed afterwards very shortly with such finely balanced examples like Obj 268v4:cap_book:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,220 posts
7 minutes ago, Starchy_Tuber said:

You predicted that before I left the game (February) and upon now returning to the game in August, it transpires you were spot-on.

I seem to remember a few others also predicting the problems, shame none of them work at WG.

 


You are confusing and conflating History with Gameplay.

As it is a game, no single ship or ship-type should dominate... but a team that works together, should.

If a ship, or ship-type, IS too dominant, then it needs to go....as they have already done with numerous OP indivdiual ships (mostly/too some degree)

 

Teams working together, that is the joke, and when you try, you then get some dickwad in chat spouting off about ones stats, that happens to me and when it does I just do my own thing, better yet I just turn chat off, that though is negated by clan divisions.

 

Surely it would such and easy thing t implement that if you are in a division, even with chat turned off you can still communicate with you division buddies?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,779 posts
245 battles
6 minutes ago, NoobySkooby said:

Teams working together, that is the joke, and when you try, you then get some dickwad in chat spouting off about ones stats, that happens to me and when it does I just do my own thing, better yet I just turn chat off, that though is negated by clan divisions.

 

Surely it would such and easy thing t implement that if you are in a division, even with chat turned off you can still communicate with you division buddies?

Or me struggling to break 50k damage top tier lexi (lol) and then doing 130k bottom tier. And then peepes expect me to be god and just delete enemy planes (i bloody wish) and dev strike every sod on the map (lol).

 

Oh well miss hosho is still OP despite the torp speed nerfs.

 

Im not sure if thats a feature in world of danks.

 

 

1643717072_happylol.gif.ca07cb7d127a7b7275aab64c6dad28b1.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,220 posts
Just now, CptBarney said:

Or me struggling to break 50k damage top tier lexi (lol) and then doing 130k bottom tier. And then peepes expect me to be god and just delete enemy planes (i bloody wish) and dev strike every sod on the map (lol).

 

Oh well miss hosho is still OP despite the torp speed nerfs.

 

Im not sure if thats a feature in world of danks.

 

 

1643717072_happylol.gif.ca07cb7d127a7b7275aab64c6dad28b1.gif

 

Well they are getting a double barrelled shotgun, (Russian of course) but lasers and death rays would be most welcome in that game, lol

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,779 posts
245 battles
Just now, NoobySkooby said:

Well they are getting a double barrelled shotgun, (Russian of course) but lasers and death rays would be most welcome in that game, lol

Blyatject 703!!!!

 

With extra cyka!

 

Why i am not surprised that the first double barrelled tank is russian that uses the new system and is also a paper tonk?

 

Suprised transformations havent been added yet, imagine going Super E100 4 Kaioken X 150.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
278 posts
3 hours ago, Sir_Sinksalot said:

Take a look at the top 2 ships of each team. Anything wrong with that? No? The whole "risk vs reward" concept wash over you guys at WG? Balance in a game was washed overboard at the WG directors table too? That's where the game is at and why it's about as much fun to be part of a battle like this with these carriers involved as a getting a kick in the nuts over and over. You think that's bad? Now imagine 3 per team, and ya, they be top 3 on each team too but moving forwards if I'm dumb enough to play a slower class of ship like a BB(which is so sad and pathetic I should have to avoid playing this otherwise appealing and iconic class)and I get focused on be carruers I'm just going to exit the battle, I'm not going to be some guys fun pinata that I can't counter, it's just not good for a persons health to endure those sorts of experiences where you're getting slapped around with your hands tied behind your back. With these carriers what you have is a spotter and a yolo destroyer all in one only where a destroyer would get killed off quickly for making such a raid against a ship, all that's lost for a carrier is a few respawning aircraft so where the destroyer player is dead and back at port the carrier is laughing his as* off and launching what's effectively another high speed airborn destroyer over and over.... and over again. Are you dumb honestly? Maybe things get better at higher tiers I wouldn't know I'm just a new player but their ain't no forking want in me to find out! That's the experience and feedback of a new player. Keep burying your head in the sand though, I'm sure that will double and triple the playerbase. 

 

Wall of text crits for 10.000 damage... That is just painfull to read. Some formatting would be good, as that would make this a lot easier to read...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
9,850 posts
11,562 battles
9 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Why i am not surprised that the first double barrelled tank is russian that uses the new system and is also a paper tonk?

Because it wasn't americans who come up with this glorious tank design

latest?cb=20091221194452

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
13,781 posts
19,478 battles
56 minutes ago, Molly_Delaney said:

yes, but a good CV player should be able to dominate the match, just as in WW2 where the carrier dominated.

 

The realism argument doesn't fly with WoWs. This is an arcade game, not a simulator.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles
35 minutes ago, Starchy_Tuber said:

You are confusing and conflating History with Gameplay.

 

History is important tho, but gameplay supersedes all ( except when submarines do 30kts submerged, that's just out of this world.. ). 

 

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

 

But doesn't that mean the fundamental problem of better CV = disproportionately higher chance of winning remains the same as before the rework, aka the rework is a failure? :cap_hmm:

 

Nah as long as the player numbers increased, the rest doesn't matter. Numbers don't lie, and don't you dare come up with numbers stating the other numbers are false that would be mean....

 

Just now, El2aZeR said:

 

The realism argument doesn't fly with WoWs. This is an arcade game, not a simulator.

 

Tell that to WG for trying to combine WoWs with Silent Hunter :Smile_trollface:

 

No I mean, tell them more often, and louder :cap_horn:

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,779 posts
245 battles
1 minute ago, Panocek said:

Because it wasn't americans who come up with this glorious tank design

latest?cb=20091221194452

image.thumb.png.a544c5f86d65b2824791863f035fe9e9.png

 

is balans comrade!

 

now we just need the furture version!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
9,850 posts
11,562 battles
1 minute ago, CptBarney said:

now we just need the furture version!

4ce9c64488ca230d9e4d28b08d1e767b_preview

railguns not included tho.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,779 posts
245 battles
1 minute ago, Panocek said:

4ce9c64488ca230d9e4d28b08d1e767b_preview

railguns not included tho.

noice, now we just need to assign object and random number to it!

 

*sprints to online RNG*

 

Object 2458 it is!

 

Batteries not included, Bussian Rias may also not be included, only russian refunds are avaliable for dissendants, gulag a 80% possibility for nerf justifications 20% for super gulag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
13,781 posts
19,478 battles
23 minutes ago, Panocek said:

railguns not included tho.

 

Apparently neither are the missile launchers? :cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CN_]
Moderator, WoWs Wiki Team
2,000 posts
6,411 battles

Thread closed.

 

I don't think that further replies will be more constructive than the existing ones.

  • Funny 1
  • Angry 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×