General CV related discussions.

[One_Eye_Potato]

5 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

Why, Major Koenig, do you even argue over/defend/talk about anything Rework CV related? Reworked CVs are a total disaster.

All these alterations  to the CVs themselves & all the alterations to the other ship classes due to these reworked CVs points to nothing but reworked CVs being an utter disaster.

I want the RTS CVS back - all of them (including all the still missing odd tier CVs). 

The fact that the Carrier Rework constantly maintains its position at the top of the General Discussions is all you need to know about the state of the game and the developer behind it.

[Miscommunication_dept]

24 minutes ago, One_Eye_Potato said:

The fact that the Carrier Rework constantly maintains its position at the top of the General Discussions is all you need to know about the state of the game and the developer behind it.

Being pinned might have something to do with it.

[1MajorKoenig]

4 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

want the RTS CVS back - all of them (including all the still missing odd tier CVs).

See - and I don’t. I found them hilariously bad and unfun. You have an opinion - fine. Accept that others have a different opinion 

 

And mind you: a game designed for thousands of players will not always and in every detail be to your personal liking 

 

Btw I am not going to participate in your childish down voting. 
 

5 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

All these alterations  to the CVs themselves & all the alterations to the other ship classes due to these reworked CVs points to nothing but reworked CVs being an utter disaster.

No. They point towards the fact that WG put a reworked class into an existing setup. And that WG struggles to predict behaviour and usage upfront 

 

5 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

Why, Major Koenig, do you even argue over/defend/talk about anything Rework CV related? Reworked CVs are a total disaster.

No people just try to push through their opinions and preferences.

 

And identifying spotting as such an issue is dishonest at best. The mechanics and problems are not different to the RTS model 

[El2aZeR]

3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

No it is the same just elevated. 

6 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

No other class can move over terrain, not stop, needs to use boost to speed up or slow down, etc.

 

Facts heavily contradict you.

Or are you seriously claiming that for example planes can stop in mid air like ships can on the sea?

 

3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

RTS used also some core mechanics such as spotting yes but it was still notably detached (“mini game”) by the controls and view alone

 

So are reworked CVs. Again to claim that they are the same mechanically is a hilarious fallacy.

Or if you want to prove your claim, do actually answer basic questions such as

6 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

But if you really want to cling to it, do tell, how does playing CVs help in developing for example BB skills? Does aiming skill transfer over? Positioning? Ammo choice?

instead of humiliating yourself by avoiding them.

 

3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Doesn’t prevent yourself from

cooperating with your time in any way. Spotting for the team, attacking a key target for the team, focus the Team on a DD

 

It was deemed too powerful in RTS, it is too powerful in the rework. As such one of these things needs to go.

 

3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

No, claiming such interaction should not happen is the problem. 
 

The only option btw is if you would take away team spotting for all classes. Possible but pointless.
 

The starting point btw. was why WG should not listen to a lot of these CV suggestions out of the community. This suggestion and your insistence on it clearly show why

 

It isn't. Again, terrible players who do not understand your mechanics must not be taken into consideration, otherwise making a game in itself is pointless.

 

No it isn't. Otherwise WG would not have trialed such changes to begin with. They however dismissed them on the basis that either it was too confusing for the average player (minimap spotting), which again is a fallacy, or that it didn't change anything (delayed spotting).

Notice the contradiction.

 

The only thing that is showing is your ignorance on the matter.

 

20 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

And mind you: a game designed for thousands of players will not always and in every detail be to your personal liking 

 

If we're going by mass rule then the rework is currently hitting new lows in CV population even when compared to RTS, representing a measly 2% of all players. RTS had 1.5 to 2x the number.

 

20 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

The mechanics and problems are not different to the RTS model 

 

Precisely.

And since spotting was a big issue in RTS it remains so in the rework. The sole difference between the rework and RTS is that in RTS it could have been solved by adjusting AA since AA when built for it was generally powerful enough to both deny strikes and spotting. This is no longer the case, as such the only thing that can be done is adjust spotting itself.

 

You have literally just destroyed your own narrative.

[1MajorKoenig]

4 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Facts heavily contradict you.

Or are you seriously claiming that for example planes can stop in mid air like ships can on the sea?

Intentional misreading? 

 

Movement mechanics are the same. Of course elevated - therefore you can pass obstacles and Speed is not zero but has a base value. Which doesn’t make it a different mechanic. 
 

6 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

But if you really want to cling to it, do tell, how does playing CVs help in developing for example BB skills? Does aiming skill transfer over? Positioning? Ammo choice?

I am not answering such a laughable question. Does Stealth torping help your BB skill? It is more than obvious that different classes require different specialization. 
 

7 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

isn't. Again, terrible players who do not understand your mechanics must not be taken into consideration, otherwise making a game in itself is pointless.

Dude - even in the current iteration a lot of people struggle with the overly simplistic (=dumb) mechanics! And you want to make it more counterintuitive? Unless you aim to make a game for a handful of people. See that is exactly the problem with your suggestions. 
 

9 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

No it isn't. Otherwise WG would not have trialed such changes to begin with. They however dismissed them on the basis that either it was too confusing for the average player (minimap spotting),

It is the right way to sand box such fundamental changes or “special” mechanics. And the result was to be expected because - well it is a bad idea 

 

Regardless - they will continue to look for an alternative solution. 
 

11 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Precisely

Yep - see above. WG will continue to investigate but dismissed the proposed terrible mini map solution on the grounds of being a terrible idea. 

[Pikkozoikum]

20 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Intentional misreading? 

 

Movement mechanics are the same. Of course elevated - therefore you can pass obstacles and Speed is not zero but has a base value. Which doesn’t make it a different mechanic. 

A common issue in forums (or even irl).

It's a question of scale or differantiation.

1. If you say the movement mechanics are the same, you could see that in a larger scale, that ship an planes move in 3D World (on 2D plane) with AWSD - it's same.

2. If someone looks at the detail, he will say "you don't have different speed levels of 1/4, 1/2, full speed." and stuff like that. Then it's different.

 

So it depends on the person. If you mean 1. but person goes with 2., then we have this misunderstanding. That happens so often here

[1MajorKoenig]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

A common issue in forums (or even irl).

It's a question of scale or differantiation.

1. If you say the movement mechanics are the same, you could see that in a larger scale, that ship an planes move in 3D World with AWSD - it's same.

2. If someone looks at the detail, he will say "you don't have different speed levels of 1/4, 1/2, full speed." and stuff like that. Then it's different.

 

So it depends on the person. If you mean 1. but person goes with 2., then we have this misunderstanding. That happens so often here

Well you control the avatar with WSAD in the 3d View - same as for ship. Yes - elevated to be able to pass over islands but it isn’t really “flight” mechanics. It is just sailing on a different plane (Z + a little bit). 
 

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Movement mechanics are the same. Of course elevated - therefore you can pass obstacles and Speed is not zero but has a base value. Which doesn’t make it a different mechanic.

 

You are literally contradicting yourself here.

 

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Does Stealth torping help your BB skill? It is more than obvious that different classes require different specialization.

 

No, but that is a matter of tactics not mechanics. The mechanical act of using armaments stays the same and can be transferred over. That is not the case with CVs.

 

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Dude - even in the current iteration a lot of people struggle with the overly simplistic (=dumb) mechanics! And you want to make it more counterintuitive? Unless you aim to make a game for a handful of people. See that is exactly the problem with your suggestions. 

 

This implies that the people who struggle will leave the game. This is untrue, these people will keep playing irrespective of how hard they struggle as the history of the game proves.

Even just in context of just CVs I sincerely doubt many CV players even know what spotting is, much less know that their teammates can shoot at what they spot. The ignorance of the average player goes so far that, ironically, it becomes irrelevant how intuitive mechanics are.

 

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Well you control the avatar with WSAD in the 3d View - same as for ship.

 

Just because they share a basic control scheme doesn't mean the movement mechanics are the same. This is like claiming Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament share the same movement when it couldn't be further from the truth. In fact this is like claiming all shooters since the introduction of WASD has the same movement which is beyond ridiculous.

Movement goes way beyond just sharing a basic control scheme. In fact if that is the sole criteria then RTS shared the same movement mechanics as controls did not differ contrary to what you stated previously.

 

In fact ironically even if isolated to plane movement only it has more in common with plane movement in RTS than with ship movement since compared to RTS only the basic control scheme differs while there are huge mechanical differences when compared to ships.

[1MajorKoenig]

7 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

You are literally contradicting yourself here.

No. You seem to mix up mechanics and individual settings. 
 

8 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

No, but that is a matter of tactics not mechanics.

Now you are contradicting yourself. It is the same story as with CVs 

 

8 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

The mechanical act of using armaments stays the same and can be transferred over.

No this is simply not the case. Every class has specifics

 

9 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Even just in context of just CVs I sincerely doubt many CV players even know what spotting is, much less know that their teammates can shoot at what they spot

Now I am curious how you are going to prove this highly doubtful statement  

 

10 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

This implies that the people who struggle will leave the game. This is untrue, these people will keep playing irrespective of how hard they struggle as the history of the game proves.

The game hardly introduced confusing mechanics. In fact the opposite is the case: the game - or better the developers - aim to implement as simplistic and straight forward mechanics to the game as possible. Which is by the way my biggest problem as it severely limits what you are able to do.

 

However - introducing too many “absurd” mechanics will likely have in fact a negative impact on player uptake. And we know that WG aims to avoid exactly this.

 

12 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

The ignorance of the average player goes so far that, ironically, it becomes irrelevant how intuitive mechanics are.

This statement is obvious incorrect. Otherwise you shouldn’t be worried at all about any mechanics in the game or scheduled to come to the game - making the whole discussion here moot.
 

Where you have a point somewhere in your exaggeration is that a lot of people will accept a surprising amount of strange stuff before they really leave for good but why that is has been discussed in length, no need to repeat. However even this isn’t endless. 
 

Piling up more nonsense on already existing nonsense won’t make a positive contribution. 
 

But the point was that WG can’t blindly take suggestions here.

[El2aZeR]

8 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

No. You seem to mix up mechanics and individual settings. 

 

Again, there are no individual settings. The only ones that require "individual settings" are CVs, making them an exception and not the rule.

 

9 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Now you are contradicting yourself. It is the same story as with CVs

 

Ah, so how is e.g. using DBs the same as using the primary battery on every other ship? What skills transfer over?

According to you it's all the same, no?

 

10 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

No this is simply not the case. Every class has specifics

 

Ah, so how does e.g. the mechanic of using the primary battery differ between BBs, cruisers and DDs? Is it not using the mouse to aim, lead according to shell flight times and using M1 to fire? Where does it differ, pray tell?

 

Again, do at least provide proof for your claims. Or otherwise what is the saying? "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

11 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Now I am curious how you are going to prove this highly doubtful statement

 

Given that the average CV player rarely, if ever bothers to spot, that means they either don't care or don't know about it. Either way adjusting spotting mechanics will logically not affect them.

 

14 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

The game hardly introduced confusing mechanics.

 

There are plenty of "hidden" mechanics that your average player has no clue about all the way from specific armor schemes to consumables. Adding another will not make a difference.

 

16 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

This statement is obvious incorrect. Otherwise you shouldn’t be worried at all about any mechanics in the game or scheduled to come to the game - making the whole discussion here moot.

 

The discussion is in fact moot because we know the skill level of the average player and subsequently that they don't care about the more intrinsic mechanics as we have seen over several years. It is only you who refuses to accept that.

[1MajorKoenig]

42 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

There are plenty of "hidden" mechanics that your average player has no clue about all the way from specific armor schemes to consumables. Adding another will not make a difference.

Just another claim, no?

 

42 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Given that the average CV player rarely, if ever bothers to spot, that means they either don't care or don't know about it. Either way adjusting spotting mechanics will logically not affect them.

Ah another claim…  - and no. Spotting damage in average indicates otherwise. Personal perception also 

 

42 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Ah, so how does e.g. the mechanic of using the primary battery differ between BBs, cruisers and DDs?

Main battery? Just by the settings (ahh look here we go - the mechanics have settings… who would have though) and in this case not the mechanics. 
 

Oh, and if you go back to this high level even your DBs are the same: press M1 to fire and use the mouse to aim. Although I would consider the DB stuff a special mechanic for planes - which you know - isn’t entirely surprising given the nature of dive bombers. Just stating the obvious here.
Claiming that the movement is hugely different for the “elevated-on-rails” is overestimating the “flying model” though
 

But regardless of derailing to wherever - what you try to say essentially is “if dive bombers have a different way to deliver their weapons than it is fair that they also use different spotting mechanics”. Which you can claim but which is pretty pointless and it shows - again - why WG is better off not listening to such things 
 

 

 

 

 

[El2aZeR]

12 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Just another claim, no?

 

Which I suppose is why so many players statistically fail and demonstrate their ignorance openly on several public platforms?

 

12 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Spotting damage in average indicates otherwise. Personal perception also 

 

Passive spotting =/= active spotting. Something done passively can be cut without the user noticing much of a difference.

 

12 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Main battery? Just by the settings (ahh look here we go - the mechanics have settings… who would have though) and in this case not the mechanics.

 

Precisely, the settings inside the mechanic in itself differ, but the base mechanics are the same.

Compare that to CVs were the base mechanics are different entirely.

 

Thank you for making my point.

 

12 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Oh, and if you go back to this high level even your DBs are the same: press M1 to fire and use the mouse to aim.

 

Except that isn't remotely true. Even at its most basic you first initiate an attack, have a preparation phase where you cannot attack and then are allowed to release your ordinance. It has absolutely no similarities to firing your main battery. You are once again getting hung up on the basic control scheme which is a negligible part when comparing actual game mechanics and as such laughably fallacious.

As for aim, WASD is primarily used for aiming with CVs, not the mouse. Mouse is only used for fine tuning.

 

Now, since these mechanics are apparently shared across all classes according to you, do tell what surface ship armament behaves the same way?

 

12 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Claiming that the movement is hugely different for the “elevated-on-rails” is overestimating the “flying model”

 

Except again movement is hugely different given that it shares practically no similarities beyond the basic control scheme with surface ship movement.

[mtm78]

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Does Stealth torping help your BB skill?

 Jezus....

 

Yes off course it does. Because I know where a DD is likely to go and torp me from, I can predict this when in my BB. Basically, you're constantly going: what if I was the DD, what would I do...

 

Most good players do this btw, not sure why you would even try to pretend this isn't a normal natural thing for good players to do. 

 

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

But the point was that WG can’t blindly take suggestions here.

 

WG would be better if it had listened to the GOOD players giving feedback, this game would be in a much better state. 

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

WG would be better if it had listened to the GOOD players giving feedback, this game would be in a much better state. 

One would think but reading how supposedly good players stubbornly defend the mini map spotting puts that in question. Especially on the topic of CV rework the few good feedback gets easily buried in fruitless discussions sadly 

 

3 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

Jezus....

 

Yes off course it does. Because I know where a DD is likely to go and torp me from, I can predict this when in my BB. Basically, you're constantly going: what if I was the DD, what would I do...

Of course - but that is not what was discussed. It is out of question that playing your counter yourself will improve your play 

[El2aZeR]

5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

One would think but reading how supposedly good players stubbornly defend the mini map spotting puts that in question.

 

And ofc you have never considered that it is you who is in the wrong here?

Frankly your only defense against it is "lol bad players would be confused" which is at best a shoddy excuse since, again, bad players are confused by everything and/or don't care.

[mtm78]

16 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

And ofc you have never considered that it is you who is in the wrong here?

Frankly your only defense against it is "lol bad players would be confused" which is at best a shoddy excuse since, again, bad players are confused by everything and/or don't care.

 

You never balance around the worst players, that's what leads to current carriers and current overall state of the game. 

 

23 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Especially on the topic of CV rework the few good feedback gets easily buried in fruitless discussions sadly 

The issue I see is that the good feedback is being unappreciated for some reason I don't really understand. 

[Nibenay78]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Especially on the topic of CV rework the few good feedback gets easily buried in fruitless discussions sadly 

They dont even have to be good players. By pure numbers even 10 000 complete ignorants will create a lot of horrible suggestions but as long as there is just one brilliant one, thats enough. 

 

One employee sifting through and classifying these is not a huge job for such a company.

[mtm78]

12 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

They dont even have to be good players. By pure numbers even 10 000 complete ignorants will create a lot of horrible suggestions but as long as there is just one brilliant one, thats enough. 

 

One employee sifting through and classifying these is not a huge job for such a company.

 

This is actually part of the issue though.

 

Yes, players who don't actually understand the game they are playing can give valuable feedback, but ONLY about their personal impressions. Sure, there is a chance that by accident a bad unknowing player can say something which is actually relevant to game mechanics, but usually it's not. 

 

It's like all those complaints about 'HE+fires' made by bad battleship players. Every time they went like that and you asked them: so, ok let's remove HE+fires, let's give everyone RN CL AP with increased alpha to make up for the loss of fire damage... then they go: but that wouldn't help me in my battleship?

 

No, it wouldn't help them. Because they as a player need help, not the ships they are complaining about. 

 

Good players are capable of stepping back and judging things from a broader perspective as their own, which helps a lot in making sure they are aware off possible implications. 

 

This is also part of the frustration, WG doesn't want to appear off putting to the bad players which is fine... but they should really not put the same weight on the feedback from the flunkies as on their unicorns. 

[BLUB__BLUB]

On 9/1/2021 at 10:35 PM, Samyuel said:

If planes can only show ships on the minimap, ships in smoke should only be able to see ships on the minimap when they are hiding in there smokes. They shouldn't be able to perfectly see outside their smoke just because someone else see the target.

 

Sounds great right ?

 

Currently whatever the Cv spots, is seen by everybody that can shoot it. 

If I am in Conqkek I can see a DD from > 20 km... and shoot it, too. 

When that DD would fire the guns, only anyone in his gunrange (12km) can see him. 

The rest gets minimap data. I think THAT would be much more fair, for a start. 

 

[Nibenay78]

9 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

This is actually part of the issue though.

 

Yes, players who don't actually understand the game they are playing can give valuable feedback, but ONLY about their personal impressions. Sure, there is a chance that by accident a bad unknowing player can say something which is actually relevant to game mechanics, but usually it's not. 

 

It's like all those complaints about 'HE+fires' made by bad battleship players. Every time they went like that and you asked them: so, ok let's remove HE+fires, let's give everyone RN CL AP with increased alpha to make up for the loss of fire damage... then they go: but that wouldn't help me in my battleship?

 

No, it wouldn't help them. Because they as a player need help, not the ships they are complaining about. 

 

Good players are capable of stepping back and judging things from a broader perspective as their own, which helps a lot in making sure they are aware off possible implications. 

 

This is also part of the frustration, WG doesn't want to appear off putting to the bad players which is fine... but they should really not put the same weight on the feedback from the flunkies as on their unicorns. 

I'm not sure how that is the issue or if we talk about the same thing. Of course good/smart/knowledgeable players will create better suggestions than the same amount of bad/ignorant players.

 

My point was just that in a massive amount of input, you can often find some gold. If this comes from the smartest person or the most ignorant is of less importance. 

 

To make an example: 

 

Near me there was some roadwork and the road department came up with a bad design. I assume these relatively few people (i would guess we are talking <10) are experienced in their job, but in this case they didnt get a good solution.

 

They admitted this and gave the requirements in the local news. The response was that over 1000 suggestions came in. Most were trash but one was brilliant and we ended up with a MUCH better solution that what was first adverticed. Basically the power of many outsmarted the few designers who has this as full time job.

 

Since WG appears to ignore most or just pick hapazardly, they might miss the gold.

[Samyuel]

Didn't they change the rocket aiming circles because bad players couldn't remember everything ?
Didn't they change radar range on a lot of ships because bad players couldn't remember the range of everything ?
Didn't they change lots of ships armour values because bad players couldn't remember everything ?
And I am sure there are more of it.

There is and was a lot of changes due to bad players yet only CV related changes seems to bother you.

[1MajorKoenig]

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Frankly your only defense against it is "lol bad players would be confused" which is at best a shoddy excuse since, again, bad players are confused by everything and/or don't care.

Says the guy who defends the suggestion by saying “players are too bad to understand bad mechanics therefore it is ok to implement more bad mechanics” 

 

Now you convinced me 

 

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

They dont even have to be good players. By pure numbers even 10 000 complete ignorants will create a lot of horrible suggestions but as long as there is just one brilliant one, thats enough. 

See and there is a problem - and even here we see that bad suggestions make it into the mix 

 

1 hour ago, mtm78 said:

The issue I see is that the good feedback is being unappreciated for some reason I don't really understand.

Here we agree - point I was making that too much bad suggestions are made and bury the few good ones 

[Pikkozoikum]

21 minutes ago, Samyuel said:

Didn't they change the rocket aiming circles because bad players couldn't remember everything ?

Though, how do you want remember how the rockets disperse, when the aircrafts can have 2 different load outs? ;P

But also, I think it's not exactly about "remembering", rather more about, that is easier "read-able". Rockets approaching -> horizontal dispersion. That's way easier to process, no matter if potato or unicum.

 

23 minutes ago, Samyuel said:

Didn't they change radar range on a lot of ships because bad players couldn't remember the range of everything ?

Would also say, that's more something for all players, not exactly bad players. Everyone benefits from that

 

Not denying, that bad players profit from that more, than a good player. ^^

But I think, that was not only for bad players made. And there are probably changes, that is more addressed for bad players

 

[mtm78]

53 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

I'm not sure how that is the issue or if we talk about the same thing. Of course good/smart/knowledgeable players will create better suggestions than the same amount of bad/ignorant players.

^ I was mentioning it because a lot of frustration stems from WG telling those good players that 'spreadsheet knows best'. Lots of them stopped actually expecting them to do anything with their feedback so they either turn cynical or just don't give feedback at all. 

 

55 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

My point was just that in a massive amount of input, you can often find some gold. If this comes from the smartest person or the most ignorant is of less importance. 

I agree 100%, there are many things I don't know jack about and I'm sure I could come up with something which actually makes sense for at least one of them. But, I don't think it's fair to expect WG to shift through my 1000's off attempts to get there. -> just an example using my own person I hope that makes it easier to digest. 

 

57 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

To make an example: 

 

Near me there was some roadwork and the road department came up with a bad design. I assume these relatively few people (i would guess we are talking <10) are experienced in their job, but in this case they didnt get a good solution.

 

They admitted this and gave the requirements in the local news. The response was that over 1000 suggestions came in. Most were trash but one was brilliant and we ended up with a MUCH better solution that what was first adverticed. Basically the power of many outsmarted the few designers who has this as full time job.

 

Since WG appears to ignore most or just pick hapazardly, they might miss the gold.

This is a perfect example, you're thinking WG is capable of actually picking the right feedback ( as in your example ). I don't share that vision, since I think the roadmap so far doesn't support them picking the right feedback, you yourself also make this clear. 

 

40 minutes ago, Samyuel said:

Didn't they change the rocket aiming circles because bad players couldn't remember everything ?
Didn't they change radar range on a lot of ships because bad players couldn't remember the range of everything ?
Didn't they change lots of ships armour values because bad players couldn't remember everything ?

Yes. Yes. And yes!

 

41 minutes ago, Samyuel said:

And I am sure there are more of it.

Ow yes, a lot more.

 

41 minutes ago, Samyuel said:

There is and was a lot of changes due to bad players yet only CV related changes seems to bother you.

And there you're wrong, though yes I'm aware you weren't directing it at me and I can't speak for everyone but I'm quite sure what I'm going to say is not something I'm alone in.

 

CV changes are the biggest indicator, which is why people argue so much over it. Also, CV's still have their battle influence, which bothers people so they argue over it. Those other changes you mention, if you want I think I can go back though my posts ( .. might take some time ) and point out that each of your examples I spoke out against, and if not on public forum I certainly did among my fellow players and people involved in testing. But as annoying as those changes are, they didn't change the fundamentals of the game. They removed a lot of specific ship knowledge, which did make players who spend the effort in learning those feel like WG was dumbing down the game to much. But overall class interaction is not changing with those ( except some armor changes and the introduction of more higher caliber guns leading to more overmatch, again that was the one people were the most upset about ). 

 

Lots of people who are constantly accused of being anti-submarines ( ... ) actually would love them to be in the game. But only if WG did it the right way, and the current offering doesn't even come close to being a trustworthy starting point because it appears to most to be just a cash grab, not something made because it would actually enhance the game. This isn't the thread to get to deep into that though but if you're interested there is enough information already available. 

 

42 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Here we agree - point I was making that too much bad suggestions are made and bury the few good ones 

I think it's because WG does not filter their feedback correctly. 

 

I mean the overlap to what was wrong with old RTS cv's, old stealth fire mechanics, and current submarine implementation is astounding and frankly it scares the heck out of me they pushed them in ranked in this manner.

 

 

[Nibenay78]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

See and there is a problem - and even here we see that bad suggestions make it into the mix 

 

19 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

^ I was mentioning it because a lot of frustration stems from WG telling those good players that 'spreadsheet knows best'. Lots of them stopped actually expecting them to do anything with their feedback so they either turn cynical or just don't give feedback at all. 

 

This is a perfect example, you're thinking WG is capable of actually picking the right feedback ( as in your example ). I don't share that vision, since I think the roadmap so far doesn't support them picking the right feedback, you yourself also make this clear. 

That is their problem, if experienced full time job people can't pick out useful suggestion from the noise, they can't expect people to give feedback. Even really good players will occationally give crap solutions. 

 

Quote

I agree 100%, there are many things I don't know jack about and I'm sure I could come up with something which actually makes sense for at least one of them. But, I don't think it's fair to expect WG to shift through my 1000's off attempts to get there. -> just an example using my own person I hope that makes it easier to digest. 

I would expect this, especially in the sticky CV thread. It's a relatively minor expense to go through it and note them down, classify and organize them. Present the list to the design team who gets a good brainstorm with (more or less) fresh ideas. If any of them do happen to be an amazing solution, the game could become massively better resulting in more popularity and in the end, income.

 

I do NOT however expect much from WG at all anymore. I'm just saying that I do believe they COULD have managed something better, given all the suggestions, than the piss-poor CVs we have today.

 

edit: Also from various sources, I get the feeling that ideas and suggestions from subordinates or outside the organization is generally attributed as "unwelcome".

(Just a general impression after hearing the CCs and some video from some former employee(Mademoiselle or whatever her name is?))