Super Ships = Super Slap in the face

[Panocek]

12 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

And funny enough none of the superships got superAA..

Annapolis and upcoming Patrie be like: 

Still, you're not going to stop first strike, just like DD can't stop your gimmick radar and/or autoloader so deal with it.

 

12 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

WG could have done the same job with the economy rework and Tier X ships.

Every change that directly affects players negatively isn't going to be popular. But "adding" new layer of the game with the same effect... "wdym we nerfed tier 9 and 10, all we did is addition of tier 11 to the game".

 

7 hours ago, tocqueville8 said:

But 50-60M credits for a T11 ship I wouldn't even need to grind for? Where's the sense of achievement? 

Achievement of playing one and staying afloat credit wise?

 

28 minutes ago, SV_Kompresor said:

Pretty sure you can't sell freemiums

Its... inconsistent.

 

I can sell Georgia, Alaska B, Jean Bart B, Groningen, Agir, but I can't sell Yoshino, Missouri, Khaba, Moskva, Stalingrad, Smolensk and Siegfried.

So... tier 10, RB ships and Missouri are unsellable, but other tier 9 Freemiums can be sold?

[ColonelPete]

7 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Every change that directly affects players negatively isn't going to be popular. But "adding" new layer of the game with the same effect... "wdym we nerfed tier 9 and 10, all we did is addition of tier 11 to the game".

I would say Superships diretly affect us negativly.

[Panocek]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

I would say Superships diretly affect us negativly.

Yes, but WG didn't "nerfed tier 9 and 10 directly". Just like Smolensk, technically, wasn't directly nerfed during Captain REEEwork  Whether skills responsible for range and reload are gone... those were optional, you didn't had to pick them 

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, Panocek said:

Yes, but WG didn't "nerfed tier 9 and 10 directly". Just like Smolensk, technically, wasn't directly nerfed during Captain REEEwork  Whether skills responsible for range and reload are gone... those were optional, you didn't had to pick them 

They would not need to change the ships either, just the economy. Just as they do now.

[Panocek]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

They would not need to change the ships either, just the economy. Just as they do now.

But direct nerfs to the economy would be met with (probably very) negative response, while IIRC from the announcement, tier 9 and 10 become actually bit cheaper to maintain? As main goals of that seem to be reducing effect of stacking exp/credit modifiers based on what you have, existing and new "perma camo" users also won't be affected by the looks of it.

[Nagine]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

They would not need to change the ships either, just the economy. Just as they do now.

One example - currently it is possible to play Tech tree T10s in coop and stay profitable, but that is impossible with T11. Taking away a possibility to play coop (or sailing for fun in randoms) from a researched+purchased ship will definitely not be met well. Keeping this possibility for top tiers will remove the main goal of T11s - to drain credits. 

As a bonus, implementation of T11 also open gates for future T12, T13...

 

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, Panocek said:

But direct nerfs to the economy would be met with (probably very) negative response, while IIRC from the announcement, tier 9 and 10 become actually bit cheaper to maintain? As main goals of that seem to be reducing effect of stacking exp/credit modifiers based on what you have, existing and new "perma camo" users also won't be affected by the looks of it.

 

1 minute ago, Nagine said:

One example - currently it is possible to play Tech tree T10s in coop and stay profitable, but that is impossible with T11. Taking away a possibility to play coop (or sailing for fun in randoms) from a researched+purchased ship will definitely not be met well. Keeping this possibility for top tiers will remove the main goal of T11s - to drain credits. 

As a bonus, implementation of T11 also open gates for future T12, T13...

 

• Superships bring other issues to the table
• the ease of the economy IS the reason for many gameplay issues of the game
• When the Tier XII and XIII look like the Superships, then there is no need for them, Yamato Clones that just get bigger and get bigger/more guns and/or turrets are just boring.

Have you every complained about bad teammates, one sided and/or short matches? A harsher econony is the solution.

If you prefer an easy economy, you have to live with the gameplay issues. What do you prefer?

[Vbeest]

13 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

And funny enough none of the superships got superAA..

Waiting for super-subs to give you another sense of vulnerability and relief you from worrying about planes.

[Lexxmac]

My biggest Problem with Superships is that the skill gap in this Game is gigantic and having bad players in Superships vs good players has even more Battle impact and i cant think of anything that would change that.

I would even be ok with the normal Superships but Super Cv´s? common Wg everybody hates to play against cv´s because there is basicly nothing you can do and now u bring us even stronger cv´s????

 

Their Spreadsheet is saying its fine because most people cant play those ships well but good Players in Superships are hard to beat...

 

 

[Panocek]

13 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

When the Tier XII and XIII look like the Superships, then there is no need for them, Yamato Clones that just get bigger and get bigger/more guns and/or turrets are just boring.

Thats why "tier 12" probably will start featuring guided missiles. You can inflate Yamato design only so much before it becomes a meme. Or 5th turret Des Moines for that matter

 

13 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Have you every complained about bad teammates, one sided and/or short matches? A harsher econony is the solution.

If you prefer an easy economy, you have to live with the gameplay issues. What do you prefer?

Back when I was playing WoT, that game had no "economically easy mode" on hightiers and it took actual effort to not bleed credits when playing tier 9-10. Did that stop all kind of speshul people from playing these tiers? No. It just made them play more [insert tier 8 premium] to make up the credits.

 

If anything, with clear connection of post battle maintenance costs with damage taken and ammo cost being major factor of post battle bill, it encouraged randoms to be even more passive than you have in WoWs. And unlike WoWs, your average tonk can't lob shells over hills, so mispositioned tank is going to be even more useless than 20km camping BB that is actually trying to shoot someone.

 

Thus "just increasing maintenance costs" on tier 9 and 10 ships combined with nerf/removal of economic bonuses of permacamos would merely move noobs from Hindenburgs to Agirs, from Preussens back to GK.

[Nagine]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

• Superships bring other issues to the table
• the ease of the economy IS the reason for many gameplay issues of the game

Agree. WG simply decided that advantages outweigh the issues.

 

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

When the Tier XII and XIII look like the Superships, then there is no need for them, Yamato Clones that just get bigger and get bigger/more guns and/or turrets are just boring.

Hm, what about cruise missiles, airborne CVs, Caspian monsters at 200 knots? WW2 now is a history :)

 

7 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Have you every complained about bad teammates, one sided and/or short matches? A harsher econony is the solution.

If you prefer an easy economy, you have to live with the gameplay issues. What do you prefer?

I don't play randoms, so for me PVE friendly economy is vital. Coop get rids of the unpredictable teammates part while operations remove short matches.

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Thats why "tier 12" probably will start featuring guided missiles. You can inflate Yamato design only so much before it becomes a meme. Or 5th turret Des Moines for that matter

 

Back when I was playing WoT, that game had no "economically easy mode" on hightiers and it took actual effort to not bleed credits when playing tier 9-10. Did that stop all kind of speshul people from playing these tiers? No. It just made them play more [insert tier 8 premium] to make up the credits.

 

If anything, with clear connection of post battle maintenance costs with damage taken and ammo cost being major factor of post battle bill, it encouraged randoms to be even more passive than you have in WoWs. And unlike WoWs, your average tonk can't lob shells over hills, so mispositioned tank is going to be even more useless than 20km camping BB that is actually trying to shoot someone.

WoT is a different game. We had a harsher economy in WoWs once, the game was better. And yes, high Tier premiums do not help the issue.

1 minute ago, Nagine said:

Agree. WG simply decided that advantages outweigh the issues.

 

Hm, what about cruise missiles, airborne CVs, Caspian monsters at 200 knots? WW2 now is a history :)

 

I don't play randoms, so for me PVE friendly economy is vital. Coop get rids of the unpredictable teammates part while operations remove short matches.

CoOp is not the issue. It is about Randoms and the economy in high Tier Random.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

Yamagiri turned out to be a real slap in the face.

 

 

[Panocek]

8 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

WoT is a different game. We had a harsher economy in WoWs once, the game was better. And yes, high Tier premiums do not help the issue.

Average randoms are/were the same in both games. And Tier 8 technically also falls under "hightier", as tier 10 can and will met these, so you're not getting away from your daily dose of noobs 

 

Then there's question whether "old WoWs was better" due to you being sentimental or back then there were relatively more naval enthusiasts instead "I have no idea what I'm doing but it makes boomy noises so its gud" kind of people. Certainly I don't have "fond memories" of "old WoWs being better". As in, game itself, before Lesta went full crayon on "early access", tier 9+ premiums, CV/captain/subs was better, but playerbase? Not so sure. Alternatively I wasn't experienced back then to immediately identify morons in the game.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

10 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

We had a harsher economy in WoWs once, the game was better.

 

 

Huh? We economy was like fantastically generous in WoWS compared to WoT. I played both games and never in the million years could I have afforded equivalent high tier gaming in WoT as opposed to WoWS.

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

The players will get worse and worse stumbling uptiers for an even more "ultimate" goal. When regular and premium tier X ships were already enough to zombify the majority of the servers, superships alone will be enough to increase this problem drastically. Especially when players need some tier X in the port to be able to purchase them. It is like a heavily multiplied incentive to skip tiers and cash into high tiers even more. That is the formula of the entire WG franchise: Constantly putting more broken stuff in front of player's noses and they will do whatever is necessary to have the "best stuff". Utterly braindead. And be prepared what they will come up with next. This game has become a slapstick comedy in episodes.

[Nagine]

6 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

CoOp is not the issue. It is about Randoms and the economy in high Tier Random.

You can easily loose 200 000 credits with premium in coop while playing superships (I assume something similar would be for "just having fun" in randoms). That is quite an effective credit sink for those who just care about the biggest ships.

And again, big mighty superships also provide a new expensive incentive for those who want only the mightiest and the biggest.

 

What is the price of that for WG? Community will rage just like it does about any new patch (so basically no cost).

[Panocek]

8 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

Huh? We economy was like fantastically generous in WoWS compared to WoT. I played both games and never in the million years could I have afforded equivalent high tier gaming in WoT as opposed to WoWS.

Well, if ColonelSpreadsheet wants "endgame only for vets", then mayhaps Armored Warfare? Where you need to grind 1.6m exp to progress from tier 9 to 10, then you need about 2m exp to max out your tier 10 With similar economy as WoT have, mind you

 

But then, he'd complain about no repair/ammo costs there (in main game mode, PvE that is) so damned if you do, damned if you don't

[albin322]

6 hours ago, BlueMerry said:

and should i care about your concern dear customer ? 

do what you want i just feelt the need to point it out!

[ColonelPete]

22 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Average randoms are/were the same in both games. And Tier 8 technically also falls under "hightier", as tier 10 can and will met these, so you're not getting away from your daily dose of noobs 

 

Then there's question whether "old WoWs was better" due to you being sentimental or back then there were relatively more naval enthusiasts instead "I have no idea what I'm doing but it makes boomy noises so its gud" kind of people. Certainly I don't have "fond memories" of "old WoWs being better". As in, game itself, before Lesta went full crayon on "early access", tier 9+ premiums, CV/captain/subs was better, but playerbase? Not so sure. Alternatively I wasn't experienced back then to immediately identify morons in the game.

They were never the same. WoWs is moving towards WoT standards.

And yes, the ecoonomy was diferent.

20 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

Huh? We economy was like fantastically generous in WoWS compared to WoT. I played both games and never in the million years could I have afforded equivalent high tier gaming in WoT as opposed to WoWS.

I am not comparing WoWs and WoT.

The WoWs 2016 economy was harsher compared to WoWs 2022.

15 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Well, if ColonelSpreadsheet wants "endgame only for vets", then mayhaps Armored Warfare? Where you need to grind 1.6m exp to progress from tier 9 to 10, then you need about 2m exp to max out your tier 10 With similar economy as WoT have, mind you

 

But then, he'd complain about no repair/ammo costs there (in main game mode, PvE that is) so damned if you do, damned if you don't

But I am not talking about that. And no, I did not complain in 2015/2016.

[ross1193]

I totally agree, with over 193 ships and like you have done a lot of grinding to get the necessary coal/steel for some of those, this is a total insult. Can't believe you don't even have to research them (or am i wrong?).

Another screw-up like subs from the NEW dev team!

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

They were never the same. WoWs is moving towards WoT standards.

 

This would not be a good direction, economically or otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

And yes, the ecoonomy was diferent.

I am not comparing WoWs and WoT.

The WoWs 2016 economy was harsher compared to WoWs 2022.

 

Okay... I never experienced any problems before or now, at least when on premium time.

 

1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

But I am not talking about that. And no, I did not complain in 2015/2016.

 

Neither did I. Actually... I complain a lot more these days, but not necessarily about in game economy.

[Nibenay78]

2 hours ago, Panocek said:

Annapolis and upcoming Patrie be like: 

Still, you're not going to stop first strike, just like DD can't stop your gimmick radar and/or autoloader so deal with it.

 

I'm just the CVs will just pee themselves now seeing this. /s

@El2aZeR Do you think you can make 2 passes with this mighty AA?

 

 

Edit: Just to make sure I'm not completely lost - the (outdated) wiki claims that all increases are multiplicative. As far as I see, defAA and Sector running at max should then multiply the numbers on the screenshot with 2.625 (1.75 x 1.5) ?

 

meaning the values would be 2029 and 837?

And then further reduced by 0.9 to 1826 and 753 

decimals just cut off.

 

which means within 4km a squad would take about 1500 dps. If only it wasn't immune during the run :D

[_ActaNonVerba]

15 godzin temu, RedRonie napisał:

 I personally will no longer play T9/10/11 battles. Only T8 or below for my sanity and all of these ships mentioned above will be collecting dust in my port. And i havent even mentoined my favorite T9/10 tech tree ships.......................

 

 

Well this puts the same problem that you said in your post. If you play only Tier VIII and below then you can face Tier IX and Tier X easily (yes you will be able to avoid Super Ships). But I will use your words: Why should I play Tier VIII when there is Tier IX and X? This is the part of the statement that I really don't get.

 

Also taking a Super Ship in a battle ruins your economy. Correct me if I am wrong but the economy of Super Ships is gonna be lowered even more in the next update.

 

Don't forget that most/some of the above mentioned ships are Rare and Unobtainable. Every Tier IX ship from your list has an increased Credits income and every Tier X ship has a lowered service cost.

 

I can also safely say that certain ships from that list are also not suited for their Tier. (I mean they are overperforming compared to their counterparts.) For example  - Thunderer, Smolenks, Benham, Smaland, Musashi, Ohio, Alaska, Bourgogne, Ragnar, Georgia...

 

I am well aware of the fact you don't like Super Ships in their current state but there has to be something that distinguishes them from their previous ships in the Tech Tree line.

In fact they are called Super Ships for a reason.

[Puffin_]

I see NO POINT in Grinding for Steel Ships or Research Buero Ships.

Much easier to get Stronger Super Ships.