BB's stock hulls initiave

[fnord_disc]

 

So you read Ev1n's post here and decided to ignore it

 

Yes, he almost always ignores criticism and lavishes praise on those that agree with him.

[puxflacet]

 

So you read Ev1n's post here and decided to ignore it

 

if he wouldnt be from the wg staff nobody would even noticed...

[mtm78]

 

if he wouldnt be from the wg staff nobody would even noticed...

 

But he is. 

 

I understand your drive, I would like some game mode where I can reenact actual historical battles, doesn't really matter if it's PvP or PVE to me ( but more likely PVE as most historical engagements were not 'a fair fight' and I would like to point out the failure of historical battles in WoT. No one wanted to play the 'bad' side, no one queued up in 'undertiered' tanks, everyone wanted to be the Jagdtiger or the TigerII, no one wanted to be T34. I don't want that repeated with WoWs, it would be a waste of resources. 

 

That being said, I feel you're better off thinking along the same line and making suggestion which are more readily applicable given the above post indicating another direction opposed to a complete tech tree overhaul / tier progression change. 

 

Just my 

[puxflacet]

But he is. 

so he has to be right...

[1MajorKoenig]

 

Yes, he almost always ignores criticism and lavishes praise on those that agree with him.

 

Nope not ignoring anyone mate. Ev1n's reply - even highly appreciated that he reads tree topics and takes the time to reply - was vague at best. Nothing that would kill the discussion which pieces of the game can be improved. Tiering is one of them in my opinion, carrier gameplay, RNG dependency of the artillery system another or lack of support for team play, etc. But these are different topics ;-)

[puxflacet]

I would like to point out the failure of historical battles in WoT. 

but Ev1n proposed pretty much the same thing...

[mtm78]

but Ev1n proposed pretty much the same thing...

 

No, Historical battles where PvP, which is why it failed because of the reason I explained above. 

 

so he has to be right...

 

Maybe respond to the entire post and not just one line? Would help to put things in perspective

[puxflacet]

No, Historical battles where PvP, which is why it failed because of the reason I explained above. 

...and would fail even when against bots.

 

Maybe respond to the entire post and not just one line? Would help to put things in perspective

that was a response just for that line.

[mtm78]

...and would fail even when against bots.

 

that was a response just for that line.

 

Thanks for confirming you should be ignored not tried to reason with. 

[puxflacet]

Thanks for confirming you should be ignored not tried to reason with. 

ok. so i will take my time to respond to something which should be ignored right from the start just to prove you my good will...

 

- you brought nothing new but stating that someone is right, just becouse he is from the developers team

- then you posted a comment where you elaborate why pvp or pve separate mode wouldn't work (which nobody, except Ev1n - and maybe 3 other people who liked his post for whatever reason - even thought) and you concluded with something like "its too complicated, better give up"

 

so what constructive can i say to these...and i'm sorry that i am not more polite person

[mtm78]

ok. so i will take my time to respond to something which should be ignored right from the start just to prove you my good will...

 

- you brought nothing new but stating that someone is right, just becouse he is from the developers team

- then you posted a comment where you elaborate why pvp or pve mod wouldn't work (which nobody, except Ev1n - and maybe 3 other people who liked his post for whatever reason - even thought) and you concluded with something like "its too complicated, better give up"

 

so what constructive can i say to these...and i'm sorry that i am not more polite person

 

I brought nothing new, but I posted a comment where I elaborate -> paradoxical isn't it

 

Also, where did I say PVE historical battles wouldn't work? Seems to me you're not reading or understanding what I actually said, at all. 

 

I never said: give up. I said, considering the facts, it would be prudent to put your resources somewhere where they are most likely to pay off. Which would be thinking along the lines of historical PVE battles where you can use ships in era compliance configurations to play certain scenario's / historical battles. At least, that is what I would be doing, for reasons I explained already. 

 

The proposal to change the entire tier progression system has imho zero chance of being implemented. If a WG staff member posts he would rather think along the lines of XYZ, isn't it clear that the best bet you have to getting anything like original dreadnaught battles in the game is to follow up on his notion? You can't seriously expect WG to change the entire backbone ( tier progression ) of the game at this stage. 

[puxflacet]

I brought nothing new, but I posted a comment where I elaborate -> paradoxical isn't it

yeah...some people can say a lot and nothing simultaneously

 

Also, where did I say PVE historical battles wouldn't work? Seems to me you're not reading or understanding what I actually said, at all. 

i summarized it for you.

 

and where is anything about complete tier progression system change?

the problem we are discussing is already in the game and we just do want to ignore it. tiers are already progressing chronologically but with some awkward peculiarities we would like to fix

[1MajorKoenig]

I never said: give up. I said, considering the facts, it would be prudent to put your resources somewhere where they are most likely to pay off. Which would be thinking along the lines of historical PVE battles where you can use ships in era compliance configurations to play certain scenario's / historical battles. At least, that is what

The proposal to change the entire tier progression system has imho zero chance of being implemented. If a WG staff member posts he would rather think along the lines of XYZ, isn't it clear that the best bet you have to getting anything like original dreadnaught battles in the game is to follow up on his notion? You can't seriously expect WG to change the entire backbone ( tier progression ) of the game at this stage. 

 

Hi mtm,

 

the current tier system is not especially perfect on the lower tiers so the proposal is more of a cleanup combined with factoring in more weight for the dreadnought era. 

 

The tiering system on higher tiers would only be touched once the USN cruiser line split happens which would clean up the Cleveland in wrong era issue at least.

 

Also the low tier power progression is far from being the backbone of this game. I guess you said so to add weight to your point.

 

This exercise would include some low tier rebalancing, yes. But improving the powe progression and adding a fun tier.

[mtm78]

yeah...some people can say a lot and nothing simultaneously

 

where is anything about complete tier progression change?

the problem we are discussing is already in the game and we just do want to ignore it. tiers are already progressing chronologically but with some awkward peculiarities.

 

 

The tier progression is per design, your proposal means changing it. A game which is already launched will never go through changes like you're proposing. You seem to want a game called 'Age of Dreadnoughts' not World Of Warships. 

 

The lower tier's might feel artificial, and for the German hull's there already is a discussion where it's explained why they have certain fictional upgrades ( just as we have 'paper' ships in lines to fill holes ). This is NOT a historical simulator, it is an arcade game. As such, there is more attention to in game balance and logical tier progression, then there is to historical accuracy. And that is a good thing, if you like WoWs, but maybe not if you actually want another game entirely.

 

I understand you're not going to change your mind, I won't comment further on this as there is no point, I hope you won't be to disappointed in the end. 

 

 So I think that there should be done something what helps these configurations to be competitive in this game and justify their existence, because they are already in the game and people have to go through them whether they are fans of dreadnoughts or not.

 

They are competitive, because they already meet other stock ships alongside with upgraded ships but this is the same for each player. Luckily, any decent player will soon be able to upgrade to a more competitive configuration because on low tiers progression is really fast. The fact that you approach this game from a 'per ship' basis instead off a 'per player' basis, makes you think it's not fair, but it is. 

 

ps. For someone claiming others can use a lot of words but not say much, I would say you're making an accurate description of yourself. 

[mtm78]

 

Hi mtm,

 

the current tier system is not especially perfect on the lower tiers so the proposal is more of a cleanup combined with factoring in more weight for the dreadnought era. 

 

The tiering system on higher tiers would only be touched once the USN cruiser line split happens which would clean up the Cleveland in wrong era issue at least.

 

Also the low tier power progression is far from being the backbone of this game. I guess you said so to add weight to your point.

 

This exercise would include some low tier rebalancing, yes. But improving the powe progression and adding a fun tier.

 

The low tier BB's are also balanced to feel 'more demanding', WG has said this was intended to teach people that BB's are not the easy mode ships people might think. CA/CL's are meant to be the entry class, easy to learn and get decent results in, but hard to reach the skill ceiling.

 

I see there are things which could make it more appealing for people to use stock hulls, but if that doesn't fit in the game progression it would do more harm trying to shoehorn it in. So, in order to satisfy your ( and mine! ) wish for historical battle reenactments to be possible in this game, I would sooner see it in a PvE mode where the AI is balanced against the ships as they were in those battles. 

 

I am worried about the rebalancing of low tier ( armored ) cruisers, I am worried about 'era specific tiering' not being feasible to balance in game correctly ( Myoko / Mogami in CBT should ring a bell ). 

 

In short: the changes needed to realize your wish for dreadnaught's to be viable in PvP battles ( oriented to those dreadnaughts ) make me very worried about the entire game. Not in the least because it means rather big changes, which can almost not be made in steps. It's like WoT, you would need a WoWs sandbox server to test changes this big, to get meaningful data on how those changes affect the gameplay.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you can propose it in a manner where it would be feasible, but I don't think you've done this so far

[puxflacet]

They are competitive, because they already meet other stock ships alongside with upgraded ships but this is the same for each player. Luckily, any decent player will soon be able to upgrade to a more competitive configuration because on low tiers progression is really fast. The fact that you approach this game from a 'per ship' basis instead off a 'per player' basis, makes you think it's not fair, but it is. 

so which statement are you believe in because they are pretty much contradictionary

- at first you are saying that stock hulls are competitive

- than you says that it doesn't matter because players will get to top hull quickly

- and at the and you are concluding with that the competitivness of ships doesnt matter at all because skills are what matter

and this is pretty good sample of your "logic" in every post you made

 

... and i never said anything about that it is unfair. my suggestions are just to improve the historicity

 

you constantly missing the point of these suggestions, yet trying to spread you wisdom...sorry but i was patient enough

[mtm78]

You're constantly trying to pick ONE thing of what I said and twist that to not have to respond to the actual important parts. 

 

Historicity is not the goal of WoWs, not when it intervenes with the tier progression or game design. A WG staff member already hinted to maybe have historically accurate reenactments in PVE mode, where it doesn't mess with the overall game design as is. 

 

But please continue, I hope you expand a tremendous amount of effort into getting what you want thinking you might get it

[puxflacet]

so can you pick for me the important parts so that i can respond to them...because somehow i can not tell the difference

[mtm78]

so can you pick for me the important parts so that i can respond to them...because somehow i can not tell the difference

 

Yeah but not from me, I am done here.

 

source

 Have we already deliberately forsaken historicity for gameplay ? 100% yes. As an example, we can take the AA configuration of Atago or Arizona (to make them more balanced, the first one had her AA made worse, the second one, better) or the coats of arms displayed on German ships (during combat, they were not displayed, but they are rather pleasing to the eye). There are a lot more of these examples.

 

Continue to try to fight the wind as long as please

 

[puxflacet]

ok. so i will take my time to respond to something which should be ignored right from the start just to prove you my good will...

 

- you brought nothing new but stating that someone is right, just becouse he is from the developers team

- then you posted a comment where you elaborate why pvp or pve separate mode wouldn't work (which nobody, except Ev1n - and maybe 3 other people who liked his post for whatever reason - even thought) and you concluded with something like "its too complicated, better give up"

 

so what constructive can i say to these...and i'm sorry that i am not more polite person

correction: you originally came here just to mock 1MajorKoenig which really pi**ed me off and i really regret that i even responded to you

[Sigimundus]

correction: you originally came here just to mock 1MajorKoenig which really pi**ed me off and i really regret that i even responded to you

 

You began to argue with yourself?

 

And mtm78 is right. Your proposals are "unrealistic" in view to the game mechanics.

 

 

[puxflacet]

ok then...what about remove bb's stock hulls completely? is that realistic enough?

 

FUSO the the worst boat of the game

[mtm78]

ok then...what about remove bb's stock hulls completely? is that realistic enough?

 

FUSO the the worst boat of the game

 

Did you play WoT?

 

Ever heard of free-xp sinks? 

 

Stock Fuso would qualify no doubt ;)

[puxflacet]

And do you know why she is a free-xp sink? Because of the reasons we are discussing here right from the start.

 

You know that these stock hulls are useless but you dont want anything to be done about that.

 

Ok. I give up, becouse this is really futile fight.

[KPtja]

And do you know why she is a free-xp sink? Because of the reasons we are discussing here right from the start.

 

You know that these stock hulls are useless but you dont want anything to be done about that.

 

Ok. I give up, becouse this is really futile fight.

 

This game needs stock hull for people like me to throw money in it. Money means keeping the game going. So no need to change them. Stock hulls need to be crap.