[MKLG] Edi4Play Players 29 posts 9,823 battles Report post #1 Posted December 3, 2019 nothing to say anymore. 3 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LordTareq Players 278 posts 1,667 battles Report post #2 Posted December 3, 2019 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[-SBG-] ColonelPete Players 38,559 posts 19,178 battles Report post #3 Posted December 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, Edi4Play said: nothing to say anymore. Apart from people like you saying that over four years ago... 3 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrFingers Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters 3,242 posts Report post #4 Posted December 3, 2019 Yes and no. I agree that those "paper ships" (or even worse: plain WG inventions) can become a thorough problem if WG persists that the blueprints/designstudies/sketches are 100% true, and don't need to take into account technical limitations or physical implausibilities of said nation at a certain time. Russian Battleships for instance, which vastly outperform their real counterparts if the latter would have been built, due to severe technical limitations from the shipyards at the time, or downright impossible physics (displacements that don't match armour thicknesses & densities paired with speeds + actual available engine power). Especially if the ships that were actually built have their weaknesses & compromises modelled and displayed in the game. On the other side, it's interesting to see the "what ifs" together with the ships that were actually built. It's an arms-race after all, it had little use to design/build a ship that wasn't better (or at least on par) with your direct adversary's ship it was designed to combat. I just wish that WG would spend more time on implementing ships that were actually built (that is: midtier content), and stop their boner for T9-10 content, with fantasy-stuff. If I want fantasy-stuff, I'll gladly visit WoT or WarThunder. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[NWP] Bear__Necessities Players 5,291 posts 15,379 battles Report post #5 Posted December 3, 2019 The game is being ruined by half the brain dead wits who play it anyway. Don't blame the ships. Blame the player base who demanded ships like this. Or the player base who's incompetence and whine fests leads to the creation of these types of ships to counter the dullards who can't even read a mini map or remember basic mechanics. 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SICK] Exocet6951 Weekend Tester 5,151 posts 11,809 battles Report post #6 Posted December 3, 2019 Imagine being so obtuse that you think some steel was put together following plans or not determines if a game is good 70 years later. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[-AP-] thiextar Players 3,503 posts 9,933 battles Report post #7 Posted December 3, 2019 Historical or not is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the ships should be balanced and not game-breaking. 9 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[MKLG] Edi4Play Players 29 posts 9,823 battles Report post #8 Posted December 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said: Imagine being so obtuse that you think some steel was put together following plans or not determines if a game is good 70 years later. Have you seen the new Midway movie? Myb they should have put a Smolensk or idk Stalingrad in there? would be more historic. 1 1 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[MKLG] Edi4Play Players 29 posts 9,823 battles Report post #9 Posted December 3, 2019 Just now, Edi4Play said: Have you seen the new Midway movie? Myb they should have put a Smolensk or idk Stalingrad in there? would be more historic. I think if a nation from ww2 had made a paper ship with 100 guns, WG would put it in the game 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[ST33L] Loke56 [ST33L] Beta Tester 98 posts 9,552 battles Report post #10 Posted December 3, 2019 Actually, Im counting on WG to continue making ridiculous paper ships. Eventually, when WG has noting op left to make, and have painted themselves into a corner of high performance paper t10 ships. then they have to unleash it... Spoiler The glorious... Spoiler The everlasting... Spoiler HABAKKUK!! And on that day my friend, you will feel what true ballance really means 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SVX] albin322 Players 1,850 posts 20,871 battles Report post #11 Posted December 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, Loke56 said: Actually, Im counting on WG to continue making ridiculous paper ships. Eventually, when WG has noting op left to make, and have painted themselves into a corner of high performance paper t10 ships. then they have to unleash it... Hide contents The glorious... Hide contents The everlasting... Hide contents HABAKKUK!! And on that day, you will feel what true ballance really means give it to me now NOW Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[-SBG-] ColonelPete Players 38,559 posts 19,178 battles Report post #12 Posted December 3, 2019 29 minutes ago, Edi4Play said: I think if a nation from ww2 had made a paper ship with 100 guns, WG would put it in the game That is the reason we can play Kitakami! Because she existed and had many torps... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KOKOS] DanSilverwing Players 1,193 posts 19,517 battles Report post #13 Posted December 3, 2019 Isn't USS Phoenix a HE-spamming paper ship? Rhetorical question, she is; and has been in the game from the start. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[-URK-] wot_2016_gunner Players 2,588 posts 6,830 battles Report post #14 Posted December 3, 2019 Excuse me; who said "non historic trash spammer paper ships" ? USS Worcester CL-144 and USS Atlanta CL-51 reporting for duty @Edi4Play tho i can agree with you in regards to Smolensk and Colbert, but the other "HE spam" ships can stay imo. (and i don't have any of those) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[MKLG] Edi4Play Players 29 posts 9,823 battles Report post #15 Posted December 3, 2019 1 minute ago, wot_2016_gunner said: Excuse me; who said "non historic trash spammer paper ships" ? USS Worcester CL-144 and USS Atlanta CL-51 reporting for duty @Edi4Play tho i can agree with you in regards to Smolensk and Colbert, but the other "HE spam" ships can stay imo. (and i don't have any of those) Did I mention Worcester or Atlanta. If I did, I made a mistake. but pretty sure I didn't. It only bothers me, that WG is introducing too much paper ships in the game, and than buffing them too much, wich only ruins the game more. nothing else. I don't say the game is trash, I'm just worried it might become. That's all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[MKLG] Edi4Play Players 29 posts 9,823 battles Report post #16 Posted December 3, 2019 32 minutes ago, albin322 said: give it to me now NOW agree Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[MKLG] Edi4Play Players 29 posts 9,823 battles Report post #17 Posted December 3, 2019 34 minutes ago, Loke56 said: Actually, Im counting on WG to continue making ridiculous paper ships. Eventually, when WG has noting op left to make, and have painted themselves into a corner of high performance paper t10 ships. then they have to unleash it... Reveal hidden contents The glorious... Reveal hidden contents The everlasting... Reveal hidden contents HABAKKUK!! And on that day my friend, you will feel what true ballance really means lol haha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[-SBG-] ColonelPete Players 38,559 posts 19,178 battles Report post #18 Posted December 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Edi4Play said: Did I mention Worcester or Atlanta. If I did, I made a mistake. but pretty sure I didn't. It only bothers me, that WG is introducing too much paper ships in the game, and than buffing them too much, wich only ruins the game more. nothing else. I don't say the game is trash, I'm just worried it might become. That's all. Too strong historic ships are ok? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[THESO] MrWastee Players 4,255 posts 33,584 battles Report post #19 Posted December 3, 2019 "simple worthless roleplay wisdom": the gamemaster ought NOT start to give the players tools too powerful for the environment they're in! the more powerful these become, the more challenge the gamemaster needs to put up and the more worthless any progression up to given point gets rendered worthless (=older ships in here). usually this ends up in a spirale called "powercreep", making the game more and more boring and ending up on it's death with players who can snip-away worlds so to say. anything pampering players doesn't benefit the game, it does the opposite. if rules are set and things are balanced around, leave it there. don't add up/don't "rework"(!!!!) single aspects, as it always brings in danger what got created as a whole. seen it all, made the mistakes myself lol. 2cts 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BYOB] Aragathor Players 7,047 posts 32,322 battles Report post #20 Posted December 3, 2019 1 hour ago, MrFingers said: Yes and no. I agree that those "paper ships" (or even worse: plain WG inventions) can become a thorough problem if WG persists that the blueprints/designstudies/sketches are 100% true, and don't need to take into account technical limitations or physical implausibilities of said nation at a certain time. Russian Battleships for instance, which vastly outperform their real counterparts if the latter would have been built, due to severe technical limitations from the shipyards at the time, or downright impossible physics (displacements that don't match armour thicknesses & densities paired with speeds + actual available engine power). Especially if the ships that were actually built have their weaknesses & compromises modelled and displayed in the game. On the other side, it's interesting to see the "what ifs" together with the ships that were actually built. It's an arms-race after all, it had little use to design/build a ship that wasn't better (or at least on par) with your direct adversary's ship it was designed to combat. I just wish that WG would spend more time on implementing ships that were actually built (that is: midtier content), and stop their boner for T9-10 content, with fantasy-stuff. If I want fantasy-stuff, I'll gladly visit WoT or WarThunder. I agree and would add more. It seems to me like WG just stopped caring about balance, they can't be bothered to properly fix ships before and after release. We have to bug them for years to get things done. Look at the Poltava. It could have been a good solid T7 BB, not OP but interesting, due to the high velocity low caliber guns. WG blew it by making it an inaccurate shotgun. Based on the stats and reviews, DoY is much better. WG doesn't care, they release it and call it good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[MKLG] Edi4Play Players 29 posts 9,823 battles Report post #21 Posted December 3, 2019 Just now, Aragathor said: I agree and would add more. It seems to me like WG just stopped caring about balance, they can't be bothered to properly fix ship before and after release. We have to bug them for years to get things done. Look at the Poltava. It could have been a good solid T7 BB, not OP but interesting, due to the high velocity low caliber guns. WG blew it by making it an inaccurate shotgun. Based on the stats and reviews, DoY is much better. WG doesn't care, they release it and call it good. When money and profit comes in the first place, nothing can stop them from releasing trash. That's how games die. Look fortnite for example. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BYOB] Aragathor Players 7,047 posts 32,322 battles Report post #22 Posted December 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, Edi4Play said: When money and profit comes in the first place, nothing can stop them from releasing trash. That's how games die. Look fortnite for example. To make money and generate profit you have to convince people to buy. Last week more people played the Oct Revolution than Poltava. Source. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[MKLG] Edi4Play Players 29 posts 9,823 battles Report post #23 Posted December 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said: Too strong historic ships are ok? You can't buff or nerf a historic ship. That's how they were. You can only put them on higher Tier. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[MKLG] Edi4Play Players 29 posts 9,823 battles Report post #24 Posted December 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Aragathor said: To make money and generate profit you have to convince people to buy. How do you convince? You make a ship overpowered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[-SBG-] ColonelPete Players 38,559 posts 19,178 battles Report post #25 Posted December 3, 2019 Just now, Edi4Play said: You can't buff or nerf a historic ship. That's how they were. ... WG does that all the time... Please read some more patch notes. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
