De Grasse: Wargaming, my two cents.

[Haleos]

Dear Wargaming,

 

So, you brought Kutuzov into the game; a ship that belonged to 1950's era. Thank you for that.

 

Now, WE(Me and many other naval history enthusiasts) expected THE REAL, eventual De Grasse, not this 1938 paper design. I totally understand the approach, with the defensive statement of "But this is the actual design!". Yes, it is.

 

But let me explain you the problem: This ship ISN'T COOL. It doesn't have a unique appearance, it's not pretty, it's not beautiful; VISUALLY it looks SO DAMN PLAIN that there is nothing that may ever attract me to it(And I bought almost all the premiums, except Kutuzov and Tirpitz: because POP CULTURE.) More on top of this, this design DOES NOT GRANT A UNIQUE PLAY STYLE. It literally looks and feels like every other damn French ship in the entire tech tree.

 

Now, take my advice, please. I really love you for creating this game, and I'd love you more if you take my advice into account.

 

As much as we love historical ships, we also love the variation in playstyles. Appearance matters to us. The 1956 De Grasse, which is a bulky enlarged, muscular Atlanta with the visual resemblance of a Moskva, is an awesomely looking ship which would deliver us a unique play style in the tiers above tier7, which Atlanta belongs to. I am really sorry that you blew to create this opportunity to your playerbase. I am really sorry to say this, but literally there is NOTHING cool or attracting about this 1938 design, except the Dazzle Camouflage.

 

I know, now is already too late to change things. But please listen: Unless it promotes a unique playstyle on top of this REALLY PLAIN FORM, I am not going to buy this ship. Neither I think many people like me might do. We are dissappointed. I have been waiting for Tone to be released for more than a year now, a ship which, due to its turret formation, would grant a unique cruiser play style just by its design on its own.

 

For the future, please take these elements when you are to release premiums:

- Is it historical?

- Does it look cool and attractive?

- Does its design deliver a unique playstyle.

 

I don't know what else to add. My disappointment is beyond words. Thank you for reading.

 

[Holaadian]

In short it will be the pre nerfed t6 baquet we getting from French line atm.

 

You could have f sold the 1956 model ALOT but this crapyeah few ppl thats it.

[Mucker]

I'm glad WG went this way. I'm absolutely not interested in a high tier Atlanta clone but rather have a conventional T6 cruiser thats rather good looking. Thumbs up.  

[ImperialAdmiral]

Maybe if she had different camo and something special like Perth.

 

Maybe...

[Comrad_StaIin]

we can still get the Colbert in the 1956 config

[Vaderan]

Looking at the displacement, i expect this cruiser to come around pretty solid, considering his number of guns. Deplacement wise it already belongst to the heavy cruiser class, despite bringing light cruiser guns.

I´d say, the cryout is by far too early. I wouldn´t be too surprised if WG comes around with something like a Cleveland playstyle combined with torpedoes.

 

On the other hand, there is for sure no need for further 50´s era ships, especially with annoying traits like Atlanta or Kutuzow...

[puxflacet]

wow. la gloire's camo. didnt expect that. thumbs up

ImperialAdmiral, on 17 April 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

Maybe if she had different camo...

how dare you...

 

but yeah. i would really like to see 1956 de grasse in the game at some point.

[Hateshinaku]

How can someone be disappointed because of a leak?..

[Webley_Mark]

How can someone be disappointed because of a leak?..

 

Maybe because he was excepting the 1956 version of the De Grasse, not the planned one...

[Hateshinaku]

 

Maybe because he was excepting the 1956 version of the De Grasse, not the planned one...

Well I'ts a leak after all, you always have to be prepared to be disappointed. Besides that, He wouldn't even have known it if there was no leak.

[puxflacet]

what does "historical data of 1941" means though? i thought that she had just hull completed in 1941

[Webley_Mark]

what does "historical data of 1941" means though?

 

I think they mean how the ship was supposed to look if completed at this time.

[Haleos]

How can someone be disappointed because of a leak?..

 

It is announced in World of Warships Asia's Facebook page, my friend. It's an announcement, not a leak.

[Zafkiel_Sama]

 

So, you are kind of basing your statement in:

1- I dont personally like the camo/ship, so everyone probably thinks the same,what an uncool ship

2-If it is not unique it is not a good ship

 

I really dislike this way of thinking, along with the "we are...". Dont generelize pls, you dont like it.

Now, as an answer to your questions: 

- Is it historical? -  Yes, it is.

- Does it look cool and attractive? - To me, it does, maybe not to you, but one man's meat another man's poison

- Does its design deliver a unique playstyle. - We dont know yet, we will have to see how she behaves in game, dont you think

 

[puxflacet]

I think they mean how the ship was supposed to look if completed at this time.

 

still 1941 doesnt make much sense since she was captured by germans in 1940...i think in 1941 noone had any idea how she will end up...probably a typo and should have been there 1940

[Hateshinaku]

 

It is announced in World of Warships Asia's Facebook page, my friend. It's an announcement, not a leak.

It's not about what the ricecluster releases or not, it's about the leak wich stated that the De Grasse is inbound.

[Tungstonid]

Now, WE(Me and many other naval history enthusiasts) expected THE REAL, eventual De Grasse, not this 1938 paper design. I totally understand the approach, with the defensive statement of "But this is the actual design!". Yes, it is.

 

But let me explain you the problem: This ship ISN'T COOL. It doesn't have a unique appearance, it's not pretty, it's not beautiful; VISUALLY it looks SO DAMN PLAIN that there is nothing that may ever attract me to it(And I bought almost all the premiums, except Kutuzov and Tirpitz: because POP CULTURE.) More on top of this, this design DOES NOT GRANT A UNIQUE PLAY STYLE. It literally looks and feels like every other damn French ship in the entire tech tree.

 

Not that I give anything about the French cruisers, as well as historical and (subjective) preferences for the looks of a ship aside, but isn't it better if a premium ship does have a similar playstyle like the tech tree line if you want to use it as a captain's trainer? This way you don't have to bother with skills which might become useless on one or the other ship.

 

 

For the future, please take these elements when you are to release premiums:

- Is it historical? Most of them are? Even this one if I understand some of the other posters correctly.

- Does it look cool and attractive? Again, this is subjective and WG can't/shouldn't just change the (historical) look of a ship because some people feel it looks dumb.

- Does its design deliver a unique playstyle. Already explained above. If you hire a new captain for the premium ship anyway, then this might be a good idea. But for premium ships as crew trainers it is not that effective.

 

[TheCinC]

I don't see the point of this ship at all, especially not next to the French cruiser line being implemented.

It is not different in any way, nor is it historical.

The real De Grasse, as completed, would have been an interesting tier VIII or IX.

On the upside, aside from HMS Hood, so far no other must-have premiums for me, so I can keep a lot of money in my pocket.

[puxflacet]

but i tend to agree with op. i also thought that the "real" 1956 de grasse will be the case. there was already quite a lot of mentions about her when speaking about premium ship suggestions, so im not surprised that someone can be disappointed. she would be more interesting ship, no doubts

[Haleos]

It's not about what the ricecluster releases or not, it's about the leak wich stated that the De Grasse is inbound.

 

If posting this in its entirety is a mistake then, I better have it removed. I would love to avoid doing stuff that are illegal. I thought that announcement was a legal one. Please warn me in this matter, thanks.

[Hateshinaku]

 

If posting this in its entirety is a mistake then, I better have it removed. I would love to avoid doing stuff that are illegal. I thought that announcement was a legal one. Please warn me in this matter, thanks.

 

I never stated that it's illegal, just said that you shouldn't rely on leaks since you will be disappointed quiete often.

[Haleos]

So, you are kind of basing your statement in:

1- I dont personally like the camo/ship, so everyone probably thinks the same,what an uncool ship

2-If it is not unique it is not a good ship

 

I really dislike this way of thinking, along with the "we are...". Dont generelize pls, you dont like it.

Now, as an answer to your questions: 

- Is it historical? -  Yes, it is.

- Does it look cool and attractive? - To me, it does, maybe not to you, but one man's meat another man's poison

- Does its design deliver a unique playstyle. - We dont know yet, we will have to see how she behaves in game, dont you think

 

You have points sir. Maybe I couldn't explain myself well.

 

About historical accuracy, I meant the eventual, finished and launched ship: the 1956 anti-AA version. Otherwise both designs are historical, although one being scrapped off halfway.

The camo is absolutely great, just the form isn't standing out from the tech tree cruisers; which, look alike a lot. I believe you would agree in that with me.

About the unique play style, this form would not deliver anything new or unique. What would differ from this point on is the consumables.We'll see, as you said.

[Psychocouac]

Now, as an answer to your questions: 

- Is it historical? -  Yes, it is.

 

 

No it's not. The ship was never completed in this state.

 

And come on, if WG had released the Belfast/Hood/Tirpitz/whatever iconic ship with a pre-blueprint design this forum would be filled with bloodrage and tears on every single topic. So understand our frustration to see an iconic ship, maybe the most awaited french ship with Richelieu/Jean Bart released in this state.

 

That's total nonsense from WG. If they want a TVI premium with 3*3 152mm they can choose a Galissonnière sistership. Even a Suffren/Duquesne is a better choice because they would permit to be friendly with a 203mm gameplay like you find at the end of the line.

[Haleos]

 

I never stated that it's illegal, just said that you shouldn't rely on leaks since you will be disappointed quiete often.

 

Thank you. Though I feel the urge to say that this ship is the only one to have disappointed me so far. That's probably due to the preconditionment most of us have, in hope of receiving the 1956 version.

[Verdius]

I really hoped to have the De Grasse as it actually was build with it's 8x2 127mm guns. 

I hope that maybe it will be a different hull that you can choose to give her her actual historic loadout with which she was in service. As it stands it is a real let down that we will never see one of the most unique historic ships for the French and instead now just get a clone of the tech tree one.

They could have named it Chateaurenault or something and at least leave the possibility for the actual De Grasse. 
It is really dissapointing for naval and MN enthousiasts.

It would basically be like introducing Akagi as a premium Amagi BB.