CaliburxZero

All fair takes, and no worries about the clanmate you have. I didn't take it personally, tbh I could empathize with them on some level. If I do come back i'll probably live in ranked myself for that very reason.

The compromise that me and many better players have made was, in fact, staying around still despite CVs being what they are in the game. Bear in mind, this game is a business. And just because WG wants to shove in Subs doesn't mean it has to be accepted. We already have a class that can basically attack anything it wants, at almost any time (and I've actually been playing CV for a little under an anon account, yes it really is that painfully easy.) Funnier yet, last night an Ohio from your very clan got super indignant with me after gloating for destroying my CV lol. Two classes though where regular surface ships are merely targets where they can't fight back on an even playing ground is how you make people feel its not fun.

I think this metaphor can summarize the situation on this ship-- The chef prepares for a seafood dish crab, not lobster for a dinner table that likes seafood but prefers lobster. The chef doesn't want to listen and insists their creation is what is best for the table, the customers sitting there while they could enjoy said crab, still wants the lobster instead. (and I know this doesn't include the nuance of the name but hey, I'm [edited]'ing right before bed lol) At the end of the day regardless if the ship is good or not, WG fails to give the customer what they want: "Super Atlanta" over "Austin-lite". Will the ship be good? Quite possibly by the end of testing. Does it matter to the market that it'll be good, but not what they want? Not so much (for most who'd care to own "San Diego"). Regardless, WG doesn't wish to listen as per usual and all controversy can be dodged by merely changing the name with making San Diego later or simply not at all, to avoid disappointing the customer base. It smells like WG merely wants to cash in on the history of San Diego with a gimmick set they have in their minds, feedback be damned beyond "is it balanced via the spreadsheet". I'd say I'm surprised, but I'm not. Either way, I have no horse in this race as WG has made sure I stopped coming to bet on any horses for the foreseeable future.

I see all the usual suspects of less-than-reputable people and their opinions still defend CVs. Carry on, free entertainment from my laughing at the screen is always good

So you need CV players to rub 6 brain cells together instead of 5?

I mean that's fair. And even that idea you say at the end I would've taken. Really though, I'd take almost anything than the balance they have now. RTS had tons of its own issues but hey, when they were almost extinct I won't pretend I didn't enjoy that time. Too bad I was so casual back then I was only mediocre. But I've been on these forums for a good while, it was orgasmic telling all the people who looked down their noses with their RTS CVs how they were better than everyone else that their OP toy was made officially OP and how they'd be changed due to that. The best affirmation I could've asked for, lol.

You're not wrong about what current CVs are, and I'd say you're one of the rare ones then in terms of what you found easier. "Better" only in certain aspects, drastically worse in others. Current CVs fail the simple test of "is there enough risk to balance reward?". Is it more intuitive? Yes. More accessible? Yes. But for plenty like me, it had little appeal. Perhaps if I come back to the game I'll learn them too and take it seriously unlike when I gave them a small handful of games just to shut some people up. As for the problems of RTS CV, keeping the RTS theme with less squadrons at once for example could've reduced micro requirements. There were definitely ways to improve the other system instead of just tossing it out, and as someone who hated RTS CV I hope you understand just how big it is for me to say that even.

As you so conveniently ignored, I addressed your little comment from both ends. Either way, it matters little to me as of this point. Enjoy.

I hope you know, I was in FOG as well for a brief moment. But the clan died off before I could even change my name. @Iona_401 was one of the officers back then (She doesn't even look at these forums and quit years ago) and that's how we became friends. CVs didn't outplay you back then. It was the same as it is now: Can the CV player counter the AA system? "Outplay" is a term only used if the person you're fighting was able to outfight you. In both iterations, can you tell me with a straight face the surface ship can "fight back"? If you can, then you won't like anything I have to say. Because the surface ship merely mitigates the damage, there is no way to "fight back" if the CV player had two brain cells to not put their CV in danger. AA back then had teeth at least. And I wouldn't call AA a skill-based system either... you barely did anything but build up an AA build and after that it was down to CV skill if they could mitigate the damage, this has not changed except now its made so that AA now does little to nothing if you can dodge flak, making you effectively a god. That being said, RTS CV took alot of micromanagement. Did it take a fair bit of skill? Yes. But was it fair once the CV player got said skill? Not a chance in this lifetime or the next. CVs were OP back then, and they are now. Just the difference is back then the floor was 10x higher, with the ceiling being 50x higher. Now the floor is so low even a 12 year old child can be somewhat effective, with the ceiling now only being 5x higher than that of everyone else. CVs were always bad for the game.

They (RTS CVs) were dramatically more powerful than anything we have now minus the super CVs laughably enough, and even then that could be debated to some degree. RTS CVs stood more chance than current iteration to be balanced, but WG was right about one thing with them-- Average joe of this game was too inept to learn how to use them correctly, aka the one fact that kept everyone else sane from having to deal with RTS CVs in their match, sorry. That's the reality of that era. And while I say they did have more chance to be balanced, it probably would've only stayed that way: WG would never realize the potential. But hey, I would rather take them back. At least in that system you actually had to be *Good* to be grossly overpowered. But in the end, this just reads: I'd rather die by blood loss than stage 4 cancer. That's about the difference, and almost everyone who was on the receiving end of both iterations probably would say similar.

Plenty have walked away, and many know much better than you. Always been here? I have over 100 contacts that don't come online anymore, and about a dozen of them including myself don't play really anymore either. And we all say the same things. And if you mean CVs, well guess what? Trying to rub in my face that CVs are here to stay is kind of a "no duh" moment. Did you not read my post from feeling the vitriol after? I said the same thing about subs, read in between the lines and you'd know I more than understand WG refuses to take away something for the good of the game if it means they make a few extra dollars. Not that you would ever understand. Your signature denotes just how much you like them, and I guess I can't blame you-- After all, people who want to make people miserable and not have a fair contest of skill likes those classes of ships. And El2azer can easily tell you just how balanced they are, as I don't have the time to listen to all of your petty deflections about whatever you reply to this is.

Someone who literally works for WG's opinion should be taken with a grain of salt the size of the moon. People ******endure******* CVs, and nothing else. And all players who understand the game enough all have a time limit on how long they can, you guys just pray and hope to draw in people to replace us with people willing to drop the cash while they don't understand what they're getting into. See, there's this thing called "conflict of interest". That's what your opinion represents on CVs and balance. Subs make the game worse, and they won't ever be properly balanced like CVs. It is what it is, the current playerbase has to accept two realities: 1. They won't be balanced and; 2. They can choose to endure them as well should they stay because they're not ever being scrapped as an idea.

Before I pick apart your defense, let's talk hypothetically for a moment-- Say you did agree with me, knowing I Was right. Would you keep your WG job admitting to that? I think not, lol. This is about saving face, nothing more. I give you about 2 years max putting up with defending this company that stubbornly wishes to have the mindset you displayed here. So, here's the thing. I have actually asked many unicum friends who quit years ago in 2019 (guess why they quit, lol) to come back to play a few games, and they wouldn't. Because everyone hates CVs but you guys basically make people "tolerate" CVs. Nobody but the CV players themselves enjoy it, but its a game right? Many don't care enough to quit over something so unfair, its just something they do for "fun". They want to see their little pixel boats explode, in a game that isn't some tedious simulator. And that's why you guys have an audience, no other reason. Threaten the *entire* existence? No. At least not for now. I never said that, that's you putting words in my mouth. But does it make it worse? Yes. Does it slowly kill off the top-end"? Also, yes. Also, WG pushes heavily in South America this game, after all it runs on their most likely poor systems that cannot run much on average for the median income there isn't good, so its perfect for them. What if we took a survey that took everyone's answer to a 1-10 rating of CVs on how much they approve of them, uploading their names to a text file which would be thousands but still only a few megabytes in size. Would you guys do that and share the data? Of course not, it would burn you guys at the stake once the elephant in the room is out. That's why you guys talk about population numbers, but never release the data that can be verifiable when a really poor idea like CVs, Superships, support CVs, subs are put out. Its all for profit. You can burn the playerbase as much as you guys want, and these people will back every time after awhile. After all, what else would they play if they want a game like this? Can you name to me 3, or even 2 replacements? Probably not. Its good so many old and retired players who haven't a clue about balance play this, because "muh history" as well. But as a game, it fails. And the historical justifications are only there when its convenient, arguing realism in a arcade game. Let's also pretend for a moment you would be able to provide population numbers.... but before you start talking about how the game is "growing", let's also add one other criteria to that chart: Older player/retention numbers. I imagine that's data that I'd have to be a millionaire to acquire, because that's where the true assertion you're killing this game slowly comes-- The more talented the player that understands the game, the more they get to realize CV completely destroys mechanics and things that make this game so good. And why all of those old and good player CCs, who you guys hilariously alienated all say the same thing. So who should average joe believe? The company who only wants their money, or the passionate gamers who have nothing to gain for or against supporting the product? The answer is obvious (at least, for those who can think for themselves anyway.) The writing is on the wall, and the gauntlet is thrown down. Can WoWs survive with only new players who only are pressured into spending cash as talented players continue to bleed from this game because they can't stand seeing this game being ruined further, with the only talented players who make money playing this aka current CCs + people like you, continue to play as core gameplay loops continue to crumble stay? Or will the experience be continued to tone-deafly pushed harder for awful mechanics like CVs to where you guys make even average joe eventually want to quit? It truly is an interesting social experiment, its why I stay to watch this burn down slowly but surely. Now, I know I won't get any real admittance to alot of these realties (probably none) from you should you respond, and that's okay. I'll let the court of public opinion and the annals of history watch over this take. And side note: There are probably a few purples out there who just hold on because nostalgia and love this game too much to let go, aka sunk cost fallacy. But hey, you guys probably know about that better than most so I'm sure you can understand.

*sigh* Third post where I really shouldn't be posting. But I have to call out your narrative here, a false one. If this was the case CVs wouldn't be here, or at the very least not in this form. Face it-- You guys are 100% okay with damaging your own product, in the name of hubris and profit margins, the damage done long-term is always always always ignored. That's why a huge portion of your own audience is against you and anybody affiliated. This is obvious, but I want it on the record from me. You guys coast on being the only boats game in town that isn't trying to be a sim, an already niche market. If there were actual market competition, you guys would sink faster than ten-ton goulashes tied to the entire development team's legs.