WG make me understand

[Hedgehog1963]

None of what you said is completely true either. 

 

All the events I describe are  accurate and true to the extent of my knowledge.  Call me a liar and you'd be wrong.

[Hedgehog1963]

 

 

 

Seems he was talking about people not wishing to get gud to which you replied that would be fine at lower tiers. Why shouldn't we have good players and balance at all tiers?

 

  Because people reasonably want to have casual games they needn't study hard to enjoy.  I reckon up to tier IV there's no issue with that.

[mtm78]

The idea is to serve the needs of those who cry the most, which is the BB players who just want to fight other BBs.  

 

It's a bit deeper then that actually.

 

BBabies represent a large part of the playerbase because BB's are forgiving, especially for 'snipers' which is what most BBabies tend to do. These are also terrible players ( sniping in a BB kind of indicates this on it's own doesn't it.. ) and because they are such baddies, the economy is pretty rough on them. This leads to the BBabies to having a higher need to spend money on WG for premium time and ships, and they can't sustain their gameplay as well as decent players. 

 

Since WG knows these people are their primary milk cows, they cater the game to fit their needs more and more, hoping to retain the baddies ./ BBabies at all cost as they think this will mean the highest possible profit margins. 

 

 

 

https://eu.warships.today/vehicles

Check out the top performing ships...you're in tinfoil hat territory now. 

 

 

 

Shinome -> ship which is at limited availability and probably only played by specialized DD mains

Fijin / Kamikaze R / Gremyashchy  -> ships which are overpowered by nature and no longer sold/available. 

 

You can't really use those and claim DD's are the top performers. If you could, we should say CL's are the best ships in the game, just because of Flint ( or Belfast... Fiji... ).

 

 

[TheOneAndOnlyGoldstein]

"Belive me if any other company will make a game with ships or tanks where they will leave the nerfing to actualy players, people will move there"

 

Good luck finding that game lol.

 

The rest of it just sounds like sour grapes over your favourite ship being nerfed.

 

Now where did I hear this before... back in '12-'13 people said the same about WoT, and now there is WT:GF and Armored Warfare. WT is going to get ships in the time span of 6-9 months implemented to a more than playable degree, and then WoWS will need to adapt or perish.

 

Hedgehog1963, on 12 January 2017 - 07:38 PM, said:

 

None of what I said is untrue.

 

 

I know it isn't, because as a main BB player (yes, send all the hate to me) at least for now I got better odds at avoiding torps. Boy, back in alpha if I ate 2-3 max 4 torps, I'd be dead no matter what I was rolling in. I personally had to torp with the Iwaki A a Chester 4 times to kill it from nearly full hp.

 

This doesn't explain though how are DD's in the top rankings. Being in top rankings regarding win rate means that they do something good, and they can't do good without firepower: there is only so much you can do by being an ace at maneuvers or peekaboo-ing around and island; without firepower back-up, you don't kill ships, and by not killing ships you inevitably lose in a 1v1. You can't have win rate without something backing it up.

[Date_A_Bullet]

Wargaming should learn from other games like League of Legends.

 

Riot Games completely balances their game based of the performance the top players, not the casual crying that "master yi is op".

 

"Master Yi OP" = "Torpedoes OP" for World of Warships, for everyone who is not familiar with League.

 

Riot never nerfed Master Yi just because noobs cant handle him.

 

League - after all these years - is still one of the most played games and the competetive scene is huge.

 

Lets see if Wargaming can guess why.

[StringWitch]

and that WG recently change the game URL title header to "a game about battleships" (google world of warships if you don't believe me)

 

This wasn't a recent change, it's said that for months if not always. NA has a less inane description.

[Fizzy_Odin]

If WG remove stealth fire than can remove half of DD and Rusian cruiser line and some other cruisers  because only balance for tham is that stealth fire and I'am telling you this as owner of tier 10 German BB - you can oneshoot cruiser and you can rape DD with secondary on BB or even kill big DD ( like Russian ) with your main guns so only tactical thing he can do is stealth fire and it is on you to counter that, and stealth fire is impossible if there is cv in game....

 

WG makes this game mpre inbalance with every patch they make, it was far better in open Beta than now  

[Panocek]

moomoo2, on 12 January 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:

"Belive me if any other company will make a game with ships or tanks where they will leave the nerfing to actualy players, people will move there"

 

Good luck finding that game lol.

 

The rest of it just sounds like sour grapes over your favourite ship being nerfed.

 

Now where did I hear this before... back in '12-'13 people said the same about WoT, and now there is WT:GF and Armored Warfare. WT is going to get ships in the time span of 6-9 months implemented to a more than playable degree, and then WoWS will need to adapt or perish.

 

War Thunder "ships" will fail at day one, because Gaijin focuses on small PT boats, not even destroyers. And I don't see how armed powerboat is going to win popularity against Iowa, Yamato or Bismarck

[Zathras_Grimm]

 

All the events I describe are  accurate and true to the extent of my knowledge.  Call me a liar and you'd be wrong.

 

 

  Because people reasonably want to have casual games they needn't study hard to enjoy.  I reckon up to tier IV there's no issue with that.

 

Actually looking at that last sentence, if he called you a liar he would be right. Unless you are stating you have 'never' lied.

 

And the fact you're are happy with what you call a 'casual gamer', as long as they don't play in your games says a lot. This game is for everyone to enjoy, not just you. 

 

 

[Hedgehog1963]

 

 

Actually looking at that last sentence, if he called you a liar he would be right. Unless you are stating you have 'never' lied.

 

And the fact you're are happy with what you call a 'casual gamer', as long as they don't play in your games says a lot. This game is for everyone to enjoy, not just you. 

 

 

 

Candidate for vacuous strawman post of the week right there.

[Zathras_Grimm]

 

Candidate for vacuous strawman post of the week right there.

 

lol Absolutely! The fact you couldn't see it in your own post is what's priceless! 

 

"Call me a liar and you'd be wrong"; oh dear! 

[steviln]

It's simple marketing: battleships attract more new players because their big, massive, powerful [edited]compensators attractive ships.

You want to milk those players, and for that to happen, they need to stay. 

Since making them learn to play is beyond human possibility, considering the intellect of the average player in battle, nerfing the **** out of everything that presents even a slight challenge to a BB is the simpler option.

 

So what really? I actually do think that the game over time will have more players if it is more based around BBs. I simply think that the players interested in naval warfare and historical ships will be more loyal to the game than the players that simply enjoy a good game. Therefore is may be bad business in the long run til cater to much to CV and CA players. And it seems to me that since the meta got so BB heavy, the average number of players on the EU server have actually increased a bit! It seems to me that it is a vocal minority that prefer the old CV and CA heavy meta, while the silent majority really prefer a more BB heavy meta with few if any CVs. In my opinion Carrier actions and surface actions should be seperate games or at least seperate game modes 

[mtm78]

 

So what really? I actually do think that the game over time will have more players if it is more based around BBs. I simply think that the players interested in naval warfare and historical ships will be more loyal to the game than the players that simply enjoy a good game. Therefore is may be bad business in the long run til cater to much to CV and CA players. And it seems to me that since the meta got so BB heavy, the average number of players on the EU server have actually increased a bit! It seems to me that it is a vocal minority that prefer the old CV and CA heavy meta, while the silent majority really prefer a more BB heavy meta with few if any CVs. In my opinion Carrier actions and surface actions should be seperate games or at least seperate game modes 

 

More bad players doesn't make this game more profitable in the long run. 

[steviln]

 

War Thunder "ships" will fail at day one, because Gaijin focuses on small PT boats, not even destroyers. And I don't see how armed powerboat is going to win popularity against Iowa, Yamato or Bismarck

 

I do agree, but I think Gajin made the right decision. Since they want ships, planes and tanks in the same battles, including capital ships does not make sense and would propably have destroyed the game. 

[ghostbuster_]

The idea is to serve the needs of those who cry the most, which is the BB players who just want to fight other BBs.  

Its funny, because since months all i see on forums is DD players whining. They are the ones who cry the most. Call me liar and you will be wrong.

[steviln]

 

More bad players doesn't make this game more profitable in the long run. 

 

 

More bad players doesn't make this game more profitable in the long run. 

 

Why not really? I think a game like this need the people interested in the theme to survive, and I do not think those players will be to interested in a strange kind of combined arms naval warfare that really only occured once in real life. Off course I do not want a pure simulator, but the game also needs some similarity to the actual theme it depicts, and the use of CVs and the associated tactics have almost no similarity to real life whatsoever. In carrier battles the limited fuel was a huge importance, keeping the enemy spotted was a constant issue, the distances between fleets were much larger than anywhere near this game and you never ever had a battle with battle worthy CVs on both sides where the planes focused on the enemy BBs. 

[steviln]

League of Legends

 

That is a game with a theme that have more mainstream appeal that WW2 naval warfare, and therefore need to be different to attract players. 

[Hedgehog1963]

Its funny, because since months all i see on forums is DD players whining. They are the ones who cry the most. Call me liar and you will be wrong.

Not whining.  Liar.

[ghostbuster_]

Not whining.  Liar.

Check the threads in last 5-6 months then. Just look at how many whine threads about shinakaze torpedos there are.

[Hedgehog1963]

Check the threads in last 5-6 months then. Just look at how many whine threads about shinakaze torpedos there are.

 

Because you can't distinguish between a legitimate concern and "whining."

[Zathras_Grimm]

Its funny, because since months all i see on forums is DD players whining. They are the ones who cry the most. Call me liar and you will be wrong.

 

DDs cry the most? Recently, very possibly! Torps have been slowed, fire chance nerfed and more anti stealth has been introduced to game (hell a whole DD line has been changed lol).

 

But the statement 'They are the ones who cry the most'.

 

I'd challenge that statement (and I'd hazard a guess  'I would not be wrong'). 

[ghostbuster_]

 

Because you can't distinguish between a legitimate concern and "whining."

So when it comes to BBs: they cry, But it comes to DDs: they just state a legitimate concern? Well done

[Exocet6951]

 

This wasn't a recent change, it's said that for months if not always. NA has a less inane description.

 

Months is recent.

7 months ago were german BBs, for reference.

 

 

 

So what really? I actually do think that the game over time will have more players if it is more based around BBs. I simply think that the players interested in naval warfare and historical ships will be more loyal to the game than the players that simply enjoy a good game. Therefore is may be bad business in the long run til cater to much to CV and CA players. And it seems to me that since the meta got so BB heavy, the average number of players on the EU server have actually increased a bit! It seems to me that it is a vocal minority that prefer the old CV and CA heavy meta, while the silent majority really prefer a more BB heavy meta with few if any CVs. In my opinion Carrier actions and surface actions should be seperate games or at least seperate game modes 

 

So you think the people that are more versed in naval warfare history will be more attracted to the class of ship that had a 30 year period of existence from 1908 until the 1930's before being completely phased out by CVs, which are still today the ultimate source of strength and global power projection for a navy?

 

Then what about people who know nothing of naval warfare you say?

Here's the thing though, when people start out a game, and they have the choice between a light class, a medium class, a heavy class, and a special class (DD, CA/CL, BB, CV respectively), more people will try out the medium class first, as they're a good compromise to let them know the game a bit better.

 

What WG has done is spectacular, they actually broke that rule by making BBs so ridiculously attractive compared to the other ships that instead of having a nice 20-40-30-10 disposition that would be expected, you have over 40% of players playing BBs. And you'd think that DDs would run rampant to counter that, but it turns out that no, except at higher tier where there's still the Kebab, Gearing and co. to counterbalance it, DDs are played as much as CAs.

So what you have in reality, in a single average match is a 15-30-40-5 disposition. 

 

That's not only breaking gaming convention, but absolutely not healthy for a single class to almost outnumber both its counterclass and class it counters combined.

And that 40% is only because there's a soft cap of 5 BB per side per match. I'm certain that if it weren't there, we would see 6 or 7 per side regularily.

 

If you truly think that that's healthy for a game, be my guest, but personnally, I'm not long for this game if they keep hand holding the same class.

I've said since the second beta weekend that this was a problem that could show up if they were not careful.

 

But as of right now, I'm almost certain that WG marketing sniffed out some good milking opportunity and got their greedy little noses firmly in the game development cycle.

Some of the recent decisions reek of a suit not giving a single **** about the game and making decisions for the dev team. And before you say "tinfoil hat", may I remind you that the producer of the game overrules the dev team, and something like that happening in the gaming industry is common.

 

 

 

[Hedgehog1963]

So when it comes to BBs: they cry, But it comes to DDs: they just state a legitimate concern? Well done

 

 The concerns of BB players  are in fact just based on their selfish views of the way the game should be played i.e. there should be no threats to them except other battleships. They don't like being burned or being attacked  by ships they can't see. This is indeed an unreasonable position to take, hence some people are derogatory about those complaints.

 

The BB players knew what the game was like, or should have, before they embarked on it, and just want changes to be made to the game to suit them.

 

The concerns of DD layers are legitimate. As I described there has been a continuous progression of changes made to the gameplay clearly intended to reduce the ability of DDs to be effective.  DD players have invested as much time into the game as the BB players to get to the high tiers.  It is their game experience that is constantly being sacrificed in favour of the BB players.  So yes, legitimate.

 

You can't see the difference.  Too bad.

[TheOneAndOnlyGoldstein]

 

 The concerns of BB players  are in fact just based on their selfish views of the way the game should be played i.e. there should be no threats to them except other battleships. They don't like being burned or being attacked  by ships they can't see. This is indeed an unreasonable position to take, hence some people are derogatory about those complaints.

 

The BB players knew what the game was like, or should have, before they embarked on it, and just want changes to be made to the game to suit them.

 

The concerns of DD layers are legitimate. As I described there has been a continuous progression of changes made to the gameplay clearly intended to reduce the ability of DDs to be effective.  DD players have invested as much time into the game as the BB players to get to the high tiers.  It is their game experience that is constantly being sacrificed in favour of the BB players.  So yes, legitimate.

 

You can't see the difference.  Too bad.

 

Literally what.

 

Most times when I get shafted as a main BB player is at the hands of CA's that out-DPM me. Torpedo avoidance without hydro granted you are not a complete moron at positioning (talking about angling and distance from torpedo-clad ships) is not that hard, but when I got an Atlanta or a Painscola shooting at me, without backup I get deleted. Japanese CAs are pretty much the same but with DD-tier torps to keep in mind that can delete you if you don't keep your eyes peeled, thanks to their range and damage.

 

Hey, I don't personally want BBs to be kings and the rest be scrubs to blow up, but edging in tinfoil hat territory isn't particularly helping your point. The rock-paper-scissor system still works, in one way or another.