Dissapointed for the third time

[_Azazello_]

 

A few days ago i was going to submit this post but it got a little bit longer than i expected so this time i will try again and hopefully won't end up with a terrible wall of text. 

 /edit: it ended up as a terrible wall of text/

 

I've been playing for a while with all three wargaming titles and i reached the point where im (sadly) pretty sure that wows won't be an exception from the other two. 

 

All three games started as arcade but still fun games indirectly encuraging agressive coordinated teamplay, 

but as the playerbase grew and the more and more passive gameplay and widely shared misconceptions became more prominent the developers instead of trying to turn this tendency around made changes to the games  which

justified this kind of gameplay. Minimised the impact of individual players, made sure that every player regardless of their (in)competence can get their share of kills and wins (somewhere around the  average values) so even the worst can say " ah just the rng messing with me" and  keep playing and paying while stripping the games from those characteristics which made them fun to play in both the sort and the long term.

In the case of wot this lead to a huge financialy success, it killed wowp and im afraid the same is likely to happen with wows too.

 

 

WOT:

 

I started playing wot in cbt and got hooked very fast (propably thats why it took me so long to finally give up on it after hoping for some psoitive changes for a very long time).

At first there were very distinct classes each with their own strenghts and weeknesses. If a few players were aware these, they could turn the tide and win in situations that less experienced players would just give up without even trying.

It had a class very similar to destroyers in wows, only beeing really effective against players unaware of their surrundings and the core game mechanics. Wargaming was listening to these players and (iirc) just before release

they nerfed spgs pretty hard and from then on i think there wasnt a single patch without an artillery nerf.

 

But even worse the controversy around the first nerf lead to the "ninja nerfs", why should wg generate endless flame topics on the forums if they can modify the dispersion patters for example. I am pretty sure the accuracy stats or the size of the reticles had some meaning in the beginnig, later they became (practically) irrelevant. There was an other problem: certain tanks with low rof and high alpha damage , obviously their dispersion patterns got nerfed and the zero damage critical hits (previously known as bug) got labeled as overpenetrating shots (this move made the us heavy line practically irrelevant and i stopped playing wot at this point , later i downloaded it two or three times but i havent played more than a handful battles so i dont know  whats going on now).

 

After a while all the tanks got balanced around the dpm values, all of them felt exactly the same for me with different skins. All of the choices i faced boiled down to something like this: do i want to sacrifice 20/30/50% of my hp to kill this enemy?

 

Of course this kind of basic game mechanic (apart from beeing boring) justified:

1. the lemming trains -if a bigger group of players have a higher damage output they can take down smaller group of players regardless of other factors. 

2. running away from enemys/hiding in a corner of the map/not even trying to win a game: " i wont pay huge repair bills, they can kill me anyway a draw is still better than a lost game", etc

3. and it also  lead to more griefing/destructive play 

    

So in short the elements of the game encouraging constructive gameplay got thrown away, and players were looking at their teammates more and more often merely as meatshields (and in some cases actively using them as one).

While the only "positive" effect of the changes were keeping mediocore/bad players alive for a longer period of time therefore giving them more chance to inflict damage and feel useful (so hopefully turning them into paying customers).

 

 

WOWP:

 

The popular opinion is that this game was dead as soon it came out, but i think it was a very good game at the beginning. Somewhere between warthunder's arcade and realistic modes.

I was hoping wargaming is trying to do something similar to gaijin but instead of adding different gamemodes to the same game, they are releasing different games for slightly different target audiences. 

But pretty soon they started threating it  simply as an extension to wot's tech trees maybe hoping they wont have to add more and more tanks to wot to keep the players in the game (and their purses open).

At first the biggest strenght of the game was the fact it had very good flight model (well on the  arcade level but still...), that made it possible to outplay multiple opponents with some experience (regardless of using a mouse or a joystick - and both methot was pretty balanced btw).

But right from the start of the obt the forums was full of topics started by the wot "unicums" (jesus christ... i feel sick every time someone uses this term regarding of wot or any other game), "why cant i kill anyone?", "how could anyone kill me?", "this plane is op", ""that plane is even more op","controls are too hard to learn"...

So wg dumbed down the game, turned it into a world of tanks with wings, excepct all the negative effects of these changes were more prominent (and happened a lot faster) in this game. Planes got some ridiculous flight models, very easy controls (which rendered joysticks useless)and they felt just like tanks: as if they were having some kind of aura eating away the hp of the enemy at a constant rate.

So again: lemmingtrains, even more passive gamplay, etc. Most of the battles played out one of these two ways: either players were trying to stay as far from the enemy team as possible maybe some attack aircraft got away and won the game (mostly undetected), or there was a huge furball at the beginning deciding the outcome within 2 minutes.

The only thing that was same in all of the games was the feeling of not beeing able to effect the outcome as an indivudal player because even two very bad players had more damage output than one good player.

And at this point the game just died: it felt even more arcade and random than warthunders arcade battles or even wot,(and if someone is looking for that why would they download 15+ gigabytes and spend countless hours leveling up instead of just going back to wot, or to a webpage with some flashgames on it?).  

 

 

WOWS:

 

I think the same could be said about this game as the other at their beginnings.

 

It has very different classes of ships each with different characteristics, playstile and damage output.

 

It has a class similar to spgs/attack aircraft, which main job is to punish bad players/teams. There are a lot of bad players (everyone at the beginning) so obviously it seems like as if everyone and their mother would like to nerf destroyers to the groud: "remove unlimited torpedos from destroyers", "nerf torp damage", "nerf torp speed", "nerf destroyer detection", "make torps bounce if they hit a ship at an angle" (!?), and so on.

Almost all of these post/rants on the chat comes from player who dont know how destroyers work and they are not even interested in it (and always targetting all of the destroyers while justifying their opinoons based on a few low tier overperforming destroyers). They just want one less thing to worry about while pointing their cursor at an enemy and holding down the mouse botton. But there are a lot of them and they make a lot of noise.

/Even  players with tier 8/9 cruisers at best ask me if im serious or im trolling when i point out to them they maybe shouldn't turn away from spotted destroyers and start running with full speed to the opposite direction/flank./

 

The "meta" ( i hate  this term at least as much as i hate the term "unikum" btw) is most apparrent with CVs: nothing else matters only the damage oput, on the stat page its not effected by premium bonus so this is considered to be (one of)the only comparable stat in the game.

Therefore fighters are totally useless ... If a cv is spotting a destroyer/saving a teammate (meatshiels anyway) from an other CV it only helps with the winrate (and hurts avg damage), but the winrate heavily depends on the RNG anyway so cvs just use the strike setup and worry about their damage output, nothing else matters. 

-"Low winrate? 

-"Its just RNG! Look how much damage i inflict in avarege!"

And this is my biggest problem with cvs /apart from the hight tier US ones / : they are even less encuraged to play in a team than any other class.

 

(and its maybe just loosely connected to the mechanics or just a feeling but i found that the cv players are the most likely to behave "inappropiatly": 

-hanging in the corner in the map and spitting acid in the chat four minutes before the end of the battle if someone dares to start capping  when there is a juicy bb still alive

- a US cv without fighters cursing the MM because the other team has a lower tier jap bb with fighters and killing himself right at the start, 

-spending fifteen minutes guiding their planes outside of the map to hit the other cv while at the time its already doesnt matter if that cv gets his 6th kill or not, etc )

 

The passive gameplay:

 

Generally in tier 6+ battles it can be very clear even in the first few minutes if a team has a good chance of winning the battle or will badly fail. 

Once in a few hundred battles its because the MM balances the game by putting a high tier DD in one team and a high tier CV in the other, but almost all the time its because its very easy to spot if players are trying to get into positions where they can actively engage the enemy/gain some ground or they are just trying to get out of harms way.

And it is usually the latter, throught the whole game...

Even worse a lot of times it feels like its more about tricking a teammate into becomming a meatshield -i know im just beeing paranoid with this one-, but usually players are just turn away as soon as an enemy is spotted leaving behind their teammates (and their enemys).

If they are cruisers they turn at the first sign of a destroyer and run to the other flank. With bbs it happens all the time, they are just get to their extreme range trying to "snipe" from there and then whining about inaccurate guns.

The forums are full of posts about the colorado and the izumo beeing way underpowered while i think their not so overwhelming performance is mainly because this playstile that most players pick up around tier 6. 

In my opinion both of these ships are better than their counterparts but they rely more on their teams, in short these ships are terrible in the current "meta" because they cant run away from fights.

 

 

Im writing this post now because (even though i decided a long time ago i wont spend any money on wargaming titles), i bought premium and  its running out today, and from previous experiences the first bigger patch of the obt can tell a lot about the direction the game is going to.

So i was looking into previous patches (only joined in obt) and the upcoming patch plus i was thinking about what would make the game more appealing to me/if it worth to pay for an other month of premium. 

 

Based on what the most people consider the current "meta" a lot of things could be made to make the gameplay more enjoyable (just some quick ideas):

 

Give bonus xp/credits when/if:

-finishing the  battle sooner (10 minutes higher bonus, 15 minutes lower bonus, etc)

-killing enemy planes close to teammates

-damaging enemys within 50% of max range (or something like that)

-damaging enemys while there is only a few allies in close range of the player

-hitting targets with each consecutive volleys

 

Give less xp for the same actions if the opposite of these are true.

Increase the upkeep cost of ships (so higher repair cost even if the ship is undamaged)

 

In theory maybe these changes would make the gameplay faster, more agressive and therefor more enjoyable.

But as thinking about my previous experiences with wargaming titles i realised its pretty obvious (in this game too) that the true "meta" is not about credit/xp/damage gains, its simply about not getting hit.

/And btw how could anyone expect players to base their actions on intricate game mechanics if they dont even bother to figure out the very basic mechanics they face in every battle (like torpedos)./

 

At best most players only consider one thing when they face a choice and it is the damage received/dealt ratio. Thats the reason almost everyone is constantly running away from enemys /threating allies as meatshields. 

As long as they don't get hit, even the smallest amount of damage they cause from 20+ kms feels like a "bonus", the fact that its made possible by other allies soaking up the damage doesnt matter the slightest. 

This is the reason why balancing around a constant dps output didnt help the previous games either, while it removes the chance of oneshot kills and therefore should make players more willing to engage enemys, most players are not willing to "sacrifice" even 10% of their healt pool to take out an enemy, instead it greatly reduces the chance of succesfully engaging multiple enemys therefore it encurages players to don't even try to overcome these situations.

 

 

But what made me very disappointed is the upcoming patch ( i havent played on the test server so only have the patch notes and second hand information) 

It seems like any of the patches from the early days of wot/wowp: one (half)step forward, two steps backwards:

 

-it removes the pure strike setup from cvs, but doesnt have anything to encurage cvs to play for their teammates (some initiative to defend allies from enemy planes or something- but this could be said about any other class too)

-instead of forcing players to play more agressively and to try to take out their enemys faster it makes it easier to dodge incoming damage by reducing rudder shift time

/also it is an indirect nerf to DDs ( a really bad sign), and even worse it wasnt mentioned in the patchnotes/

-the worst of all which is a gigantic red flag in my eyes (and its not mentioned in the patchnotes either) is the lowered rate of citadel hits.

 

 

So all in all i have a feeling this game is on its way becoming the second World of Warplanes. Wargaming comes out with a fun and enjoyable game, then when the players from wot arrive expecting the same mechanics and playstile to be "succesful" that they are used to and  they inavitably fail and start complaining, wg simply modifies the game to suit their needs. Stripping it from its unique features and instead of helping to identify/higlight the mistakes players make all the time over and over again, they implement changes that make these mistakes less relevant.

Nerfing hardest the class that punishes the most basic mistakes players make, making incoming damage easier to avoid, removing damage spikes from high alpha classes.

 

Overall reducing the number of times when an avarage player could ask themself: "what mistake did i make?"/"what should i do different next time?" and i think that the best games are those which makes the players ask these questions a lot.

Also after this process is finished and results in a weird wot clone players go back to wot and start the second wave of hate post, the first beeing "this game is not like wot", the second: " if it is like wot but wot is in a more advanced state and i put more time into that, than why would i play this game?", then wargaming cuts the founding and leaves the game in a vegetative state.

 

I didn't write this post to announce something like i hate this game/will uninstall it etc (more than 16 thousand characters would not worth that anyway), i will still play it, i think its fun and most of the time i enjoy it,

but im getting suspicious and afraid its going in a direction i would not like, but i still hope that it won't happen. 

And supposedly wargaming values player feedback so after almost five years i fullfilled my duty and expressed my experiences and feelings about their games.

 

 

PS: (a little more text wont make this post a lot worse than it is anyway)

 

Just to point out one element that makes me think this is a good game and it can be even better than now rather than worse is the map "Hotspot". Which is in my honest opinion is the best map i ever encountered in any of the wargaming titles. It encourages players to work together (even if it only means pinging the map), heavily favours agressive gameplay by forcing players to remove their enemys fast.

So there is no need to make drastic changes to the game to make it better just some initiative for teamplay like a map that breaks the chain of endless maps with the same layout (one route slightly favouring one team, an other slightly favouring the other, and one "no man's land".)

 

 

[Mister_Greek]

 

 

Give bonus xp/credits when/if:
-finishing the  battle sooner (10 minutes higher bonus, 15 minutes lower bonus, etc)
-killing enemy planes close to teammates
-damaging enemys within 50% of max range (or something like that)
-damaging enemys while there is only a few allies in close range of the player
-hitting targets with each consecutive volleys

 

Give less xp for the same actions if the opposite of these are true.
Increase the upkeep cost of ships (so higher repair cost even if the ship is undamaged)

 

 

1) You cannot decide the flow of the game at this stage.Imagine if all the ships were rushing blindly to the enemy base just to get the extra xp.Not to mention that BB's need at least 6-7 minutes to get into position on most maps.= thus making them a burden for the rest of the team.

 

2) Agreed

 

3) Almost all of the battles are lower than the 50% of max range due to the inaccuracy of the guns.Ideal range in like 50-60% of your max range.

 

4) That can prove a bit useful like Damage assist in WOT

 

5) Imagine a Yamato hitting citadels with the 460 mm guns in each consecutive volley.Yeah.....

 

6) High tier ships have already too expensive upkeep.Making such a big repair bill even without getting damaged is just silly.Yamato currently needs almost 200 k repair bill,not to say the shell costs.I cannot imagine how much you want someone to pay.....

[Siagor]

+1

 

Good analysis.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

Are you basing this citadel thing in Jingles' latest video. Because honestly, no other prominent youtuber reported such an issue.

 

[Flavio1997]

Really good post, I'm starting to get worried, i had done also this text wall 4 days ago, and i start to see more people complaining about the skill killing that every patch is adding in the game. It's sad, very sad, from an alpha tester point of view

[Earl_of_Northesk]

Yeah, that Ruddershift thingy obviously is very stupid and obviously aimed at the noobs . But .4.1 isn't live yet, there is still hope...

[GinNoKatana]

 

Yah, really good analysis. It reinforces the feelings about WG's design philosophies, which I have gathered myself over the one month, which I have played this game.

 

There is a good chance that the citadel hit reduction is a false alarm, and there is a chance that they won't bring the rudder shift time changes live (yet), at least as far as my information stands. I had already decided not to invest any more money into this game anyways because it seems as if they dump its depth down continuously. Of yource my sample time is small compared to yours, but that is the direction I have felt that this game is going in tendency, and your report of your experiences basically strengthens my impression.

Furthermore, the day those rudder shift time reductions actually go live (they have appearantly tried to implement them now for the second time already), is probably the day I quit the game entirely. This should be a game about shooting stuff and not evading stuff, and most people already play it in the later way... I never understood until I read you explanation why I so often see noone actually go into friggin' combat. In a friggin' wargame...

 

My personal playstyle is very aggressive (in tendency). In any game. So I don't play games where playing aggressively isn't valid. The reasons for that are simple as well: I play to win and not to not lose. If you want to win though, you need to take aggressive action in most games where the win condition is not equivalent with not losing (those games exist, too). Yet if you only defend, you maybe won't lose, but you're robbing yourself of the chance of winning, yet your opponent still got his (if he realizes it). You're also giving away the control over the flow of the battle. If you're always running away from enemies, they can control you while the same is not true the other way around. There is a reason why I favor CV and DD gameplay. They are the counter to the defensive playstyle while enabling me to play aggressively (within boundaries). Of course, every other class has these capabilities, too, but rely more on their teammates to coordinate an attack. And if suddenly players would attack more coordinated, attacking them with a CV can become quite frustrating to right out impossible. Coordinated AA is very strong while dodging one DB squadron is quite easy (the challenge starts at dodging two). Many people just never utilize it.

Ahhhhrgh. Another thing that most people don't utilize is when I am taking point. When I play BB most of the time I take point (bacuse noone else is). Yes, I willingly sacrifice myself to get the game going and enabling my teammates to attack efficiently and effectively. But noone closes in to attack. Instead they turn further away... Oh, the frustration.

 

EDIT: Implementing the unsustainable economy at high tiers, which encourages bad gameplay, is of course **** as ****.

 

[Naskoni]

Sadly I have to agree with the OP. The rudder shift time changes seem a pretty evident shift in the devs' ideology, which in turns means nothing good for this game. I'll play it for as long as I consider it fun but have no intention of investing money (beyond my Warspite) in it until they unify the accounts so I can spend whatever gold I have left from WoT and WoWP.

[chazwozza]

Agreed making all nations classes similar in gameplay takes away the uniqueness of the nation it all becomes samey but to make money they need a player base and a player base that struggles just buggers off and don't spend cash

[GinNoKatana]

A playerbase that is bored doesn't stay, either.

 

Of course some people are not bored by buying the better ship, which will PAWN their opponents slightly less slowly in those max range I never hit anything stand of battles.

If you want your game to last over longer periods, you better make it an interesting game, though. Which is again the point of the OP in very short, I guess.

[HaachamaShipping]

Haven't been around that long, so can't comment much, but I'd think ships already get more XP when firing at targets closer to them. Because at 10 km range you just hit more often than at 20 km. With anything but battleships such a mechanic seems utterly ridiulous, because some cruisers just work by shelling the enemy at close to their max range and staying away. If for example a Kuma (or any cruiser with up to 15 km max range) would be suddenly getting half the XP for not taking on enemies within 6 km range, you got the choice between engaging ships at a range where you can dodge, though for low XP, or to go at a range that may mean getting one-shotted by a battleship.

 

I see the problem there is with people being overly cautious, but I think this one would need some refining. If it is necessary...

[Aerroon]

>Izumo and Colorado are already better than their counterparts.

>Hot Spot is the best map.

 

>Increased upkeep costs.

I would like to have what you're having, because it sounds like fun.

[_Azazello_]

Haven't been around that long, so can't comment much, but I'd think ships already get more XP when firing at targets closer to them. Because at 10 km range you just hit 

................

I see the problem there is with people being overly cautious, but I think this one would need some refining. If it is necessary...

 

 

 

1) You cannot decide the flow of the game at this stage.Imagine if all the ships were rushing blindly to the enemy base just to get the extra xp.Not to mention that BB's need at least 6-7 minutes to get into position on most maps.= thus making them a burden for the rest of the team.

................

6) High tier ships have already too expensive upkeep.Making such a big repair bill even without getting damaged is just silly.Yamato currently needs almost 200 k repair bill,not to say the shell costs.I cannot imagine how much you want someone to pay.....

 

I don't think either those changes would make the game better by themself or at all. Maybe they would but i just wanted to point out these changes propably wouldn't make a huge impact anyway because the true "meta" is not purely about inflicting damage but rather avoiding it, so  yeah people are overly cautious.

Also they would only remove the common excuses people come up with when they justify their passive gameplay but wouldn't prevent it. By inrecasing the upkeep cost i meant a system where the repair cost is only partially related with the damage taken more like a (more or less constant )fee that you have to pay to play a game -so maybe the "i will hide in a corner waiting for the battle to end" kinda behavior would be less likely to happen. (Im aware of the high repair cost, one battle in the izumo if i die is somewhere around 250k credits with the repair+ammo+camo+the 22,5k fire extinguisher thingy, making that higher wouldn't be the best idea) 

Giving a bonus for consecutive hits, etc: in theory everyone should be aware they cant keep up a steady damage output from extreme ranges yet a lot of players are still (as i imagine) justify "sniping" from the back based on a few lucky hits,  but maybe a simple visual feedback and a small bonus (based on the actual ship's ROF and the inflicted damage) would encurage at least new players to dont fall for this kind of gameplay.

 /and i didnt mean to suggest that the damage of each volley should be increased with higher citadel hit chance or anything like that, i meant it the other way around, players should be encouraged to get into a position where they can inflict a reasonable amount of damage with every volley/

 

 

 

>Izumo and Colorado are already better than their counterparts.

 

>Hot Spot is the best map.

 

>Increased upkeep costs.

 

 

I would like to have what you're having, because it sounds like fun.

 

 

At first i thought i shouldn't reply to this but i will, i just don't want to seem like if iam offended or want to be offensive because im really not.

 

I ran into two of your videos (i think its pretty much impossible not to if someone is checking out these forums or the wows subreddit every once in a while, i dont have any problem  with it guess its hard to get enough subscribers to make your time worth), -the carrier guide videos btw-, and after a few "the enemy team has a cv so just in case i get into the corner of the map", "fighters are useless" kind of comments i decided to dont even check your post.

I know i can sometimes jump to conclusions early and easily judge people, but i have a feeling you are a perfect example of a certain kind of players i have a problem with.

The kind of player who for some reason is motivated to generate a lot of posts/content/maintain a high visibility and even more motivated to don't go against the commonly accepted misconceptions / the "meta" / the one and only truth, but instead just keep echoing it and trying to get on the same page with as many players as possible to please them and making sure they can relate.

 

I guess if you have a problem with (at least) those three points you might have read why i think they are true and maybe you also noticed everyone else in the thread took some effort and wrote down why don't agree or why they do (which i appreciate a lot btw).

One of the reasons  i wasn't too active in the forums (or even in the wg games) is exactly this kind of behaviour, before or later the keepers of the one and only thruth came by and share some truth with the common folks. No explanation needed either because thats not the reason of their appearance or they seriously believe that if anyone else has a different opinion than the majority it is false by default.

 

So the "I would like to have what you're having, because it sounds like fun." becomes the ultimate argument, no explanation needed.

 

[_Azazello_]

Are you basing this citadel thing in Jingles' latest video. Because honestly, no other prominent youtuber reported such an issue.

 

 

Well i just searched for wows on youtube and was looking for the recent english videos about the patch, checked out three or four videos and in two of them the lower rate  of citadel hits were mentioned (one of those was a jingles video, i cant remember the other one and i am not familiar with the wows youtube scene so maybe its nothing to worry about).

[m4inbrain]

 

 

I don't think either those changes would make the game better by themself or at all. Maybe they would but i just wanted to point out these changes propably wouldn't make a huge impact anyway because the true "meta" is not purely about inflicting damage but rather avoiding it, so  yeah people are overly cautious.

Also they would only remove the common excuses people come up with when they justify their passive gameplay but wouldn't prevent it. By inrecasing the upkeep cost i meant a system where the repair cost is only partially related with the damage taken more like a (more or less constant )fee that you have to pay to play a game -so maybe the "i will hide in a corner waiting for the battle to end" kinda behavior would be less likely to happen. (Im aware of the high repair cost, one battle in the izumo if i die is somewhere around 250k credits with the repair+ammo+camo+the 22,5k fire extinguisher thingy, making that higher wouldn't be the best idea) 

Giving a bonus for consecutive hits, etc: in theory everyone should be aware they cant keep up a steady damage output from extreme ranges yet a lot of players are still (as i imagine) justify "sniping" from the back based on a few lucky hits,  but maybe a simple visual feedback and a small bonus (based on the actual ship's ROF and the inflicted damage) would encurage at least new players to dont fall for this kind of gameplay.

 /and i didnt mean to suggest that the damage of each volley should be increased with higher citadel hit chance or anything like that, i meant it the other way around, players should be encouraged to get into a position where they can inflict a reasonable amount of damage with every volley/

 

 

 

 

 

At first i thought i shouldn't reply to this but i will, i just don't want to seem like if iam offended or want to be offensive because im really not.

 

I ran into two of your videos (i think its pretty much impossible not to if someone is checking out these forums or the wows subreddit every once in a while, i dont have any problem  with it guess its hard to get enough subscribers to make your time worth), -the carrier guide videos btw-, and after a few "the enemy team has a cv so just in case i get into the corner of the map", "fighters are useless" kind of comments i decided to dont even check your post.

I know i can sometimes jump to conclusions early and easily judge people, but i have a feeling you are a perfect example of a certain kind of players i have a problem with.

The kind of player who for some reason is motivated to generate a lot of posts/content/maintain a high visibility and even more motivated to don't go against the commonly accepted misconceptions / the "meta" / the one and only truth, but instead just keep echoing it and trying to get on the same page with as many players as possible to please them and making sure they can relate.

 

I guess if you have a problem with (at least) those three points you might have read why i think they are true and maybe you also noticed everyone else in the thread took some effort and wrote down why don't agree or why they do (which i appreciate a lot btw).

One of the reasons  i wasn't too active in the forums (or even in the wg games) is exactly this kind of behaviour, before or later the keepers of the one and only thruth came by and share some truth with the common folks. No explanation needed either because thats not the reason of their appearance or they seriously believe that if anyone else has a different opinion than the majority it is false by default.

 

So the "I would like to have what you're having, because it sounds like fun." becomes the ultimate argument, no explanation needed.

 

 

To be fair (and for the record, i'm not fond of aerroon), his answer is pretty selfexplanatory. Especially regarding the two mentioned ships (maps are subjective i guess). 

 

The Colorado and Izumo are widely considered the worst ships in their tiers and trees (apart from the tier3 ships), for a reason. They're objectively worse than anything else, ESPECIALLY compared to their same-tier counterpart of the other nation. The Izumo doesn't have "a different playstyle", don't get tricked by the gun-layout. It is not even remotely a match for an Iowa, not even in the same ballpark. 

 

Names like "Trollorado" don't come from nowhere. It's no match for a Nagato (and that already is barely a "decent" ship). That's what he called you out for, and in my mind, rightfully so. Colorado and Izumo are not subjectively worse, but objectively. In fact the Izumo is so bad, that it felt like half of the last (or was it the one before?) patchnotes were only in regards to various buffs to make that turd even remotely playable.

 

edit: Upkeep, as far as i know (not playing high tier yet - taking my time, since there's not really much to grind yet), on higher tiers is pretty impressive. Increasing that wouldn't be a good idea, it would also counteract your "enforce aggressive plays", because people would try to stay alive/take as little damage as possible. If i have to do 120k damage just to break even, you bet your hat that i'll do what it takes to NOT take damage, including lurking on maxrange.

[ThatOneDidntGoIn]

Couldn't read that wall of text but:

WOT: Was great fun up until "The Virgin Patch: Saying NO to penetrations". then it went down hill fast. Next they started taking away places to hide in. They nerfed camo on tank destroyers... nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf.

WOWP: A fail from the start but I can't blame the devs, just the nature of the game. People want to fight, not get killed in a single pass the first time they meet a plane with cannons. It was always doomed to failure for this reason.

WOWS: Is, imo, the best of the three because for the most part, you can fight for a decent length of time. You can get one shot, but unless you're a blithering idiot, that doesn't happen often, Sadly, all the blithering idiots play battleships so we are seeing nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf based on their bitchy little whiny threads on how op destroyers are and why don't they have laser cannons, guided missiles and their own compliments of nuclear armed attack planes.

[Iron_Walls]

I posted this recently that WOWS is using the WOT model because it was the most profitable for WG.  It however doesn't work with WOWS because it ships not tanks and it is an outdated  system and concept of advancement.  The idea of inflated increase of damage done and inflating hit points to match.  Why require every tree to have a ship type at every tier?  The game is not a American vs Japanese format, so it should have the tiers match as closely as possible, but if no ship meets that requirement then just leave that tier open and allow crossovers. Why even 10 tiers, instead of letting the numbers of tiers be set by the increased efficiency of the warships. 

[Vanhal]

>Izumo and Colorado are already better than their counterparts.

 

>Hot Spot is the best map.

 

>Increased upkeep costs.

 

 

I would like to have what you're having, because it sounds like fun.

 

I would rather not, seems like bad stuff.

 

But... increased upkeep cost as incentive for aggressive play? That's total opposite, i would rather recommend reducing the cost, lots of people at higher tiers avoid any danger exactly because sinking means huge hole in credits. In WoT (idk about WoWp) and WoWs. Various test servers is proving this time and time again, when people don't have to worry about credits, they get much more aggressive than on live servers.

[voidwyrm]

I agree with most points. Well written.

 

Sometimes the whole gameplay just feel like swimming in honey instead of water. Sloooooow.

To reward faster aggressive Play would be very nice.

 

 

[Khul]

The OP is right on a few points. Battleships should be huge & cumbersome with a massive alpha strike, otherwise they are not battleships, or even a representation of same.

 

The way the devs keep pandering to the stupidest, most vocal element of the player-base will turn this into something that's barely a naval game at all. It's heading to be a late-period WOT-clone, except with the added stupidity of everything moving like cyber-ninja robot squirrels because there is no terrain to hide behind.

 

Grim days ahead.

[Siagor]

The OP is right on a few points. Battleships should be huge & cumbersome with a massive alpha strike, otherwise they are not battleships, or even a representation of same.

 

The way the devs keep pandering to the stupidest, most vocal element of the player-base will turn this into something that's barely a naval game at all. It's heading to be a late-period WOT-clone, except with the added stupidity of everything moving like cyber-ninja robot squirrels because there is no terrain to hide behind.

 

Grim days ahead.

 

Unfortunately, I think you're right on all points.

[_Azazello_]

 

My last reply to Aeerron's post was a little bit impulsive because it stuck a nerve so i just would like to make sure its clear i dont have a problem with him directly more like with the whole attitude.

(also maybe this will be a tldr version of my original post, but maybe im just repeating myself)

 

 

In all three games there were/ there are a few tanks/planes//ships (or even whole classes) different from the others, with different utility than the others before them in the tech tree. While i think they were just simply a little different from the others by showing their true strenght under less usual circumstances.  Maybe a weak attempt from the developers to mix up the usual gameplay and make it a little more interesting/less monotone (the vk4502 for example).

 

But before or later the commonly accepted opinion (more like the one and only thruth) was that they are just freexp/money sinks that WG put into the tech tree to force players to buy gold to get past them.

And players (especially the loudest ones) instead of demanding changes that would make the gameplay more diverse and therefore would give more opportunities for these tanks/planes (or inducing these changes themself) wanted changes that would make them more like any other unit - to handle and behave exactly like the tanks before or after them suiting the usual gamestyle.

 

And this is a self inducing process that happened in both of the other games: it enforces the opinion that there is only one effective playstyle and only one type of unit thats fit for that kind of playstile, i guess it also shows WG that players spend less time with the "less usual" units so they are less effective to keep players in the game for longer periods of time and discourages developers to add unique tanks/planes/ships to the game or make changes to the game that would steer it towards a more diverse experience.

 

 

/

And this same thing is happening right now in wows too.

If anyone is looking for opinions about the colorado or izumo the only thing they could find is the endless amount of posts/"funny" videos pointing out their weaknesses suggesting changes like:

give the colorado less hp/armor but increase its mobility / give izumo more armor and decrease its mobility, until these changes happen just spend some free xp on these ships instead of playing them.

So one can say they are bad by objective standards but even these "objective" standards are at least partially based on and reinforced by the common attitude towards them (maybe it doesnt make any sense, but i hope its clear what i want to say).

  

 /

 

And the reason why i think hotspot is the best map in the game because that map is the first change i can think of in any WG title thats not made to reinforce the usual gamestyle/meta, but instead its steering it into the other direction. 

(Of course i could have been too optimistic about it or looking to much into it but it was basically the only thing that convinced me its worth spending some money on this game)

 

[m4inbrain]

And this same thing is happening right now in wows too.
If anyone is looking for opinions about the colorado or izumo the only thing they could find is the endless amount of posts/"funny" videos pointing out their weaknesses suggesting changes like:
give the colorado less hp/armor but increase its mobility / give izumo more armor and decrease its mobility, until these changes happen just spend some free xp on these ships instead of playing them.
So one can say they are bad by objective standards but even these "objective" standards are at least partially based on and reinforced by the common attitude towards them (maybe it doesnt make any sense, but i hope its clear what i want to say).

 

I guess it's clear what you want to say, but it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. Every single parse of stats, of whatever sort, shows that these ships are underperforming. And that's not due to people not trying because people said they're crap - it's because they're crap, heavily underperforming especially compared to their respective other-nation-counterpart. That's parsed stats, numbers that you can look at and see that the colorado has less survivabiltiy, avg damage and whatnot compared to other ships even on lower tiers (iirc, it's in the same ballpark as the Kongo). 

 

And in terms of the colorado, there's nothing to suggest to make it work, because the biggest problem is the dispersion. You simply don't hit with it. Now one could say "get closer, where dispersion is not so bad" - and that's where the other problem kicks in: the nonexisting survivabilty. You can't snipe on range, you can't brawl. There's nothing left, that's why people suggest to jump it via free-xp. And without substantial buffs in some form, that won't change - it's not an attitudeproblem. It's an objectively bad ship. Not like the M3 Lee, hated by many people - it's not bad, if played right. Don't rush, use corners to poke your gun around, play a bit like a TD - it even has a decent top gun. There's nothing like that to say for the colorado, and that's what i mean: it's objectively an incredibly bad ship. 

 

That being said, you can (circumstantial) make the Izumo work, every blue moon. The fact that you basically auto-angle to get all your guns on target is a plus, for example. There's ways to make it work - as long as there's no carrier in the enemy team, or you get hunted by CAs. So it's less bad than the colorado, but still not even remotely comparable to all the other ships in the line. 

 

Many words, sorry - i'm not trying to talk you down, but you need to understand that many people tried the colorado (including me, in CBT and PTS), and they all were frustrated. For a reason. And no good-will or whatever is going to change that, you can't make a ship work just by changing your opinion about it. And that's what i meant: it's objectively bad, underperforming. A bit like the Maus back in the days, where literally everyone could shoot through the gunmantle because "wg-reasons". It was unplayable until they fixed it. You can't work around some things, like people shooting through your gunmantle - you have to point your gun at them eventually, and that meant all your armor doesn't mean anything anymore, because even auto-aimer exactly hit the gunmantle. Same with colorado: the downsides are so intertwined, you can't make up for it. 

[Aerroon]

At first i thought i shouldn't reply to this but i will, i just don't want to seem like if iam offended or want to be offensive because im really not.

 

I ran into two of your videos (i think its pretty much impossible not to if someone is checking out these forums or the wows subreddit every once in a while, i dont have any problem  with it guess its hard to get enough subscribers to make your time worth), -the carrier guide videos btw-, and after a few "the enemy team has a cv so just in case i get into the corner of the map", "fighters are useless" kind of comments i decided to dont even check your post.

I know i can sometimes jump to conclusions early and easily judge people, but i have a feeling you are a perfect example of a certain kind of players i have a problem with.

The kind of player who for some reason is motivated to generate a lot of posts/content/maintain a high visibility and even more motivated to don't go against the commonly accepted misconceptions / the "meta" / the one and only truth, but instead just keep echoing it and trying to get on the same page with as many players as possible to please them and making sure they can relate.

 

I guess if you have a problem with (at least) those three points you might have read why i think they are true and maybe you also noticed everyone else in the thread took some effort and wrote down why don't agree or why they do (which i appreciate a lot btw).

One of the reasons  i wasn't too active in the forums (or even in the wg games) is exactly this kind of behaviour, before or later the keepers of the one and only thruth came by and share some truth with the common folks. No explanation needed either because thats not the reason of their appearance or they seriously believe that if anyone else has a different opinion than the majority it is false by default.

 

So the "I would like to have what you're having, because it sounds like fun." becomes the ultimate argument, no explanation needed.

 

 

But the answers are self-evident. The things I pointed out are accepted as the common belief system, it's not what I have to defend, but rather you have to attack to disprove the commonly held belief.

 

You claim that the Izumo is not that bad, but look at your own stats: you have a 43% win rate over 70 games in your Izumo. Your Amagi is at 59% over 91 games. Your Colorado is at 38% over 48 games, while your New Mexico is at 48%.

Now look at my stats (I don't have IJN line, so we'll just look at the Colorado): Colorado 54% win rate over 46 games, North Carolina 63% win rate over 48 games, New Mexico 74% win rate over 38 games.

 

Just from this alone the Colorado sticks out immediately as having much lower stats. All the other average statistics also confirm that and if you look at more profiles of people then you will see a similar pattern. There is no other way to understand this other than that the ships are just poor.

 

Now you can ignore the statistics and look at the numbers on the ships: you will still end up at "this ship is poor", because the Colorado has worse average damage output, while still having poor range and slow speed. The Izumo has a different problem: her armor is very weak while being a very large target.

 

---

 

About upkeep costs: the costs are already ridiculously high when playing high tier ships. What would higher upkeep costs accomplish? Well, they would make sure people would be playing lower tier ships instead. Great, except the problem is that you will need to start shuffling your captains back and forth which is very poor because the amount of experience required for retraining at captain rank 18 is ludicrous (not just ridiculous, it's way beyond that).

 

---

 

About Hot Spot: the spawns on the map give incredible disadvantages to some classes. On top of that the spawns are random, this means that divisions can get separated and you can end up having a side where you don't get cruisers and the enemy carriers have free reign over your ships on that side. You call it being a breath of fresh air, but I just call it upsetting the way the game is played on other maps. You seem to have some kind of obsession with "not following the meta" or some BS like that, but the thing is that there is no real established meta yet, things change. The trouble is that those kinds of maps devastate the ability for some classes to perform, because of the proximity of the spawns to enemies. Battleships can literally fire at enemies 1-2 minutes into the match because they are already in range, all that needs to happen is spotting. On top of this issue what can happen on Hot Spot is that both sides of the enemy flee from the corner you spawn in, in which case you're simply sailing in a straight line with nothing to do because neither enemy side came towards you if you happen to get certain spawns.

 

And about my videos: I make videos that are about trying to win. That includes getting better at the game and taking advantage of all that you can. I don't really care that much what you or anybody else thinks in regards to me hugging a corner or me saying that fighters are useless. I usually speak my mind about what I believe to be true. I am not trying to adhere to some meta to not upset others, I'm trying to do the best to give me the biggest advantage and show others how I'm doing it, because it can be fun to watch and so they can learn. Once people become better the game will become more fun as new strategies evolve etc. 

 

Doing "something different" is not important. Winning is important. (And, of course, having fun is important too.)

 

But before or later the commonly accepted opinion (more like the one and only thruth) was that they are just freexp/money sinks that WG put into the tech tree to force players to buy gold to get past them.

And players (especially the loudest ones) instead of demanding changes that would make the gameplay more diverse and therefore would give more opportunities for these tanks/planes (or inducing these changes themself) wanted changes that would make them more like any other unit - to handle and behave exactly like the tanks before or after them suiting the usual gamestyle.

Changing the playstyle from tier to tier would be an INCREDIBLY stupid thing to do for a game that's based around progression of tiers. You simply do not do such things. Suddenly having a completely different style of play for one ship in a progression simply breaks the flow. It invalidates everything people have learned or liked about the earlier ships in that class. The difference in gameplay needs to come gradually. Look at Minekaze -> Mutsuki. That's a difference in styles for DDs, Minekaze plays like a low tier DD with low torpedo reload time and Mutsuki plays like a high tier DD with high torpedo reload time. This is a huge change for players which is why you see so many complaints pop up about that particular transition. Nothing like that happens on US DDs and thus there are no such complaints either because it's a gradual process that keeps building up to a different style of play (higher torpedo range happens gradually on US DDs).

 

And that would be the problem with the Izumo and the Colorado as well if they had to suddenly be played differently. Differences in play style in a progression need to happen gradually or there needs to be a clean separation and indication that it's going to happen (eg different ship classes). So the Izumo and Colorado should be brought in line with the other ships in those lines rather than "uniquely changed for different playstyle".

 

PS the Colorado and Izumo don't have anything which would make them somehow better or worse at having a different playstyle than most of the other BBs. They just have poor stats on their ships, which is why they have poor performance too.

 

PPS most of this is common sense so I don't see why this needs to be stated at all.

[Ragnarox]

This game is expensive above 6+ Tiers, I don't know how they will bring customers to play it. Grinding 20 million credits for T10 while in T9 is just horrible. Its worst than WoT.