The lack of AA for low tier ships is a huge issue

[geschlittert]

There are a lot of ships in T3-5 that actually or practically have no AA. 

The issue is, those ships still have to face CVs on a regular basis (double CV games are more the norm than the exception when it comes to T4/6 CVs) but have zero means of defending themself versus those attack.

This will lead to a lot of frustration, especially among new players who will maybe search a way to adapt, even though there is non.

 

I myself played some game in the Viribus Unitis some weeks ago and it is extremely disheartening to even play vs T4 CVs, as they can take a good junk of your horrendous HP pool with each of their attacks while you are allowed to shoot down 1 (ONE) plane per minute. If you are lucky.

 

WG, please give all ships that have to face CVs at least some level of AA. It will improve the new player retention which lets you earn more money.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

8 minutes ago, geschlittert said:

There are a lot of ships in T3-5 that actually or practically have no AA. 

The issue is, those ships still have to face CVs on a regular basis (double CV games are more the norm than the exception when it comes to T4/6 CVs) but have zero means of defending themself versus those attack.

This will lead to a lot of frustration, especially among new players who will maybe search a way to adapt, even though there is non.

 

I myself played some game in the Viribus Unitis some weeks ago and it is extremely disheartening to even play vs T4 CVs, as they can take a good junk of your horrendous HP pool with each of their attacks while you are allowed to shoot down 1 (ONE) plane per minute. If you are lucky.

 

WG, please give all ships who have to face CVs at least some level of AA. It will improve the new player retention which lets you earn more money.

WG: Computer says no.

[ForlornSailor]

This situation is here for 2 years. How do you rate the chance, that it will change?

 

Apparently, whoever is in charge over at WG, thinks, its more important to raise new CV players than think about keeping the game itself alive.

[geschlittert]

1 minute ago, Europizza said:

WG: Computer says no.

But it doesn't even make sense for WG. What do they gain by scaring away new players?

[DFens_666]

Did you miss the whole "CVs are not balanced, because if we balance CVs, then we lose players, and low player numbers mean CV rework is failure and then people will lose their jobs because bosses dont like wasting money on shitty reworks"?

Lowtier CVs are keeping player numbers healthy, thus CV rework remains a success!

Most played CVs by individual players (last 28days)... good luck with more nerfs for T4 CVs

 

Ofc i whole-heartedly agree with you, but this motion is futile. WG will do diddly-squat.

[ForlornSailor]

Just now, geschlittert said:

But it doesn't even make sense for WG. What do they gain by scaring away new players?

 

Ofc it doesnt make sense. What makes sense about CVs anyway? That they are protected from detonations, while already surviving almost all games? That they burn for 5 sec?

[ManuelElMenthol]

I made a similar Post a few days ago. This problem is really frustrating for players who like to play low tier (like me). I like to play the Viribus Unitis and I love her for her damage potential, but every fifth game is made unplayable by CVs.

[geschlittert]

1 minute ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Ofc it doesnt make sense. What makes sense about CVs anyway? That they are protected from detonations, while already surviving almost all games? That they burn for 5 sec?

I have come to accept that WG has one goal and really only one goal: money. But they even lose money by doing this crap. Are they stupid?

[illy]

just dodge™️ ...... 

[ForlornSailor]

Just now, ManuelElMenthol said:

I made a similar Post a few days ago. This problem is really frustrating for players who like to play low tier (like me). I like to play the Viribus Unitis and I love her for her damage potential, but every fifth game is made unplayable by CVs.

 

Hold on. I have a WG sales representative community supporter in the line. im passing him through to you:

 

My Friend. We have perfect solution for you. Is called Thunderer. You buy ship, you will have great time. I promise. Now. Do you have credit card or how would you like to pay ... ?

 

2 minutes ago, geschlittert said:

I have come to accept that WG has one goal and really only one goal: money. But they even lose money by doing this crap. Are they stupid?

 

Im not sure if its really a question anylonger at this point...

[1MajorKoenig]

The usual suspects here - so of course I show up - at least briefly - to say: yes T4 CVs should not be at T4 but CVs should only start as of T6 (or T5 if we have to). 
 

T3-5 should be exclusive Dreadnought tiers 

 

But yea, this was obvious in 2015/16 and WG didn’t want to change it. And even with their second shot - the rework - they missed the mark on power progression. 
 

 

[DFens_666]

2 minutes ago, geschlittert said:

I have come to accept that WG has one goal and really only one goal: money. But they even lose money by doing this crap. Are they stupid?

 

New player retention must be horrble, but maybe they dont care, when 1 out of 10 spends like 2000 bucks in his first months playing the game and then buggers off because spending any amount will not make him a better player.
WG has the numbers, so i guess they are fine with it?

[ForlornSailor]

1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

The usual suspects here - so of course I show up - at least briefly - to say: yes T4 CVs should not be at T4 but CVs should only start as of T6 (or T5 if we have to). 
 

T3-5 should be exclusive Dreadnought tiers 

 

But yea, this was obvious in 2015/16 and WG didn’t want to change it. And even with their second shot - the rework - they missed the mark on power progression. 

 

For me, the T4 discussion is not even that much about CVs in specific. I see how it drives away new players or pushes them into high tier premiums. And both is bad for the game in the long run (well short term aswell). Was dropping down to some low tiers recently aswell as playing my 2nd account, which is still in protected matchmaking - there are no new players at this point. I have several games on T4, where im the only human player. I know, we have doomsday-preachers since the 2nd day of the game, but when there are no new players coming in the game or they quit very soon, because they are frustrated - then how is this game going to have a long term future?

[Aixin]

Vor 28 Minuten, geschlittert sagte:

There are a lot of ships in T3-5 that actually or practically have no AA. 

The issue is, those ships still have to face CVs on a regular basis (double CV games are more the norm than the exception when it comes to T4/6 CVs) but have zero means of defending themself versus those attack.

This will lead to a lot of frustration, especially among new players who will maybe search a way to adapt, even though there is non.

 

I myself played some game in the Viribus Unitis some weeks ago and it is extremely disheartening to even play vs T4 CVs, as they can take a good junk of your horrendous HP pool with each of their attacks while you are allowed to shoot down 1 (ONE) plane per minute. If you are lucky.

 

WG, please give all ships that have to face CVs at least some level of AA. It will improve the new player retention which lets you earn more money.

I agree but it has been like this for now 2 years. And I highly doubt anything is going to change. 

[geschlittert]

@YabbaCoe Do you as community manager have to say something about this topic? Shouldnt a growing community be the goal?

[Odo_Toothless]

When bots was introduced to low tiers, it was the signal that this part of the game has the same importance like ex. operations. Just forget about it, like devs did.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

23 minutes ago, geschlittert said:

I have come to accept that WG has one goal and really only one goal: money. But they even lose money by doing this crap. Are they stupid?

Im not sure why you would think that WG's conclusion is that they are losing money over this situation. Common sense has no place in cold numbers interpreted with a bias.

[Panocek]

24 minutes ago, ManuelElMenthol said:

I made a similar Post a few days ago. This problem is really frustrating for players who like to play low tier (like me). I like to play the Viribus Unitis and I love her for her damage potential, but every fifth game is made unplayable by CVs.

WG doesn't care, neither shall you. Don't like it? don't play it, "posting feedback" won't fix anything.

[Unfortunate_Son]

24 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

New player retention must be horrble

It is. EU gets 15k new accounts / week and PVP battles engage about 150k accounts. If Co-Op is equally popular the whole playerbase gets renewed in 20 weeks.

Excluding the vocal minority, ofcourse.

[OldPappy]

But I dont get it!?

There must be more players complaining about cvs and more players quitying at low tiers thst there are total players actually playing cvs? Or am I wrong?? So this absolute refusal to accommodate an absolute majority of the players seems just plain idiotic..??!! Unless they are making way more money on the ”cv side” of the game, normal business sense 101 dictates that you try your best to keep as many customers happy as you can. They just go against this time and time again. 🤔🙃😦

Is it THAT important to save face and avoid admitting a mistake????

Or am I missing something??

 

Like so many of you, I truly enjoy this game and hope to keep playing it....

[Unfortunate_Son]

3 minutes ago, OldPappy said:

But I dont get it!?
...

Is it THAT important to save face and avoid admitting a mistake????

Or am I missing something??

How dare you try to bring logic in a discussion involving CVs!!

You must be new here.

(For the record. CV popularity is about 5% of the total ship activity.)

[geschlittert]

2 minutes ago, OldPappy said:

But I dont get it!?

There must be more players complaining about cvs and more players quitying at low tiers thst there are total players actually playing cvs? Or am I wrong?? So this absolute refusal to accommodate an absolute majority of the players seems just plain idiotic..??!! Unless they are making way more money on the ”cv side” of the game, normal business sense 101 dictates that you try your best to keep as many customers happy as you can. They just go against this time and time again. 🤔🙃😦

Is it THAT important to save face and avoid admitting a mistake????

Or am I missing something??

 

Like so many of you, I truly enjoy this game and hope to keep playing it....

The thing is, giving those ships some AA wont even "destroy" the low tier CV gameplay. I may make it a little bit more challenging. Honestly, i also really don't understand how we can be in this situation

[OldPappy]

2 minutes ago, Unfortunate_Son said:

How dare you try to bring logic in a discussion involving CVs!!

You must be new here.

My apologies. Too much vodka, comrade!

[Pametrada]

I complained about this ages ago - a CV focussed on my St Louis almost exclusively. Because of twisting and turning to avoid aircraft attacks, I didn't even manage to fire my guns once at another ship - in this allegedly naval warfare game. Shortly after, I had a similar game in the Bogatyr.

 

Absolutely no response whatsoever from WG, as usual.

[Todger_Fairmile]

WG stopped caring about tier IV years ago when they put tier V as the cut off for bonuses, bennies, missions what ever you want to call them. Personally I suspect someone high up in WG owes money to the Russian mob and milking the game(s) is their only way to avoid taking a dirt nap.