Jump to content

Thirsty13_CCW

Members
  • Content Сount

    195
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6893
  • Clan

    [TF-62]

Community Reputation

177 Valued poster

About Thirsty13_CCW

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

463 profile views
  1. Thirsty13_CCW

    USS Puerto Rico and VMF Poltava - Dev Blog

    When you lead off with the fact that this ship is an imagined version of an already imaginary ship the bull manure flag seriously bounces off the top of the mast. Yep just what this game needs another OP fake Soviet ship.
  2. Thirsty13_CCW

    Dev Blog: Subs are here

    Dear WG, @Kami @Radar_X I'd like to share a few thoughts with regards to subs. First the announcement "that our players are highly interested in submarines and we should be engaged in full development." frankly feels very much like a bold faced lie. Here is a news flash. I don't mind being told things I don't like when they are the truth nearly as much as I mind being lied to. The majority of feedback I saw after the Terror of the Deep event was that players did NOT want subs in the game. That people played the mode didn't mean they liked having subs. Especially since that mode wasn't even close to the same thing as having subs in random battles. I strongly suspect if you actually polled players you would find that the majority of us are fine with subs being in a special mode but that they should NOT bein inserted into normal random or competitive game play. Second the subs we had for the special event were HIGHLY ahistorical. Frankly I for one am getting more and more tired of WG taking what is supposed to be a game based in reality and adding silly gimmicks that are well outside the bounds of what was remotely possible. Like 40 knot battleships and 55 knot destroyers for one. Subs that can run a sustained 25+ knots underwater are the work of science fiction fantasy with the exception of the Type XVII that frankly wasn't even close to being a useable weapons system. Then again we now have multiple Soviet Ships in game that are essentially imaginary given that the Soviet union lacked the technical capability to build the designs they are based on. My point is that if your going to remotely respect history (as you should) a Gato class sub that runs 8-9 knots submerged and 21-22 on the surface is going to really struggle to be fun to play in the current meta. Let me please beg of you not create subs that are utter nonsense racing around at speeds that a Soviet Alfa would have been envious of. In the spirit on offering constructive suggestions I offer the following: 1.) Subs should not ever be incorporated into normal game modes or competitive events like ranked or clan battles. 2.) The testing plan seems sound but if you want people to really play them you going to need to seriously incentivize that behavior. Like offering Steel in notable amounts for just playing the sub modes. 3.) For the love of all that is Holy the subs need to be reflective of actual fleet boats. I'm repeating myself but I'm not interested in seeing a French sub line running at 80 knots and firing 200 knot torpedos. 4.) I strongly suggest doing some heavy duty polling and getting someone into WG HQ in Russia that can really look at the data and feedback your getting. 5.) A game mode that reflects WWII or WWI convoy combat with DD's trying to keep subs away from the Merchies and a wolf pack of subs trying to get in and get kills does sound like a lot of fun. Especially if your talking live players in both the DD's and the subs. Something like that should be the focus of your development. NOT trying to get subs into Random battles as a new ship class.
  3. Thirsty13_CCW

    An Open Letter to Wargaimng

    @Radar_X Thanks very much for your reply. 1.) The devblog presents work in progress changes. It very often does not address the core issue these changes are trying to solve. When all I can see is a proposed change without an explanation of why this change is truly being pushed (NTC wasn't about trying to get more mid tier play its a resource sink). That WG rolled out NTC and then essentially doubled down on it when the community blew up doesn't lead me to look at it as something you truly wanted input on. That may not be true but that's what it felt like. 2.) Your spot on that if the only issue was to fix an OP premium the reaction wasn't going to be much different. Part of the problem is that there wasn't clear communication on what exactly you wanted to achieve leading to a good deal of speculation on what your desired end game was. 3.) Given that LWM felt blindsided by the NTC I would say it wasn't an issue of having time to review and digest. If I recall correctly the very first she heard of it was when it got announced to everyone. And its not the first time something like that has happened to her according to her forum posts. Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
  4. Thirsty13_CCW

    An Open Letter to Wargaimng

    Well Clearly you were in the minority. The larger issue of course is how they handled that attempt.
  5. Thirsty13_CCW

    An Open Letter to Wargaimng

    Dear Wargaming, @Radar_X @Kami @Femennenly If recent controversies have shown anything it’s that you’ve got a very involved player base that cares deeply about this game. Its also shown something else unfortunately. Your capacity to shoot yourself in the foot. Their may be reasons for that range from differences in culture between Russia and the west or simply misreading the wants and needs of your player base. It could be a mistake many corporations make in todays world where we have access to reams and reams of data but often don’t understand how to really analyze and understand that data to draw good conclusions. WG would be far from unique if it had that problem. I’m going to make an assumption here which I suspect is valid. That you enjoy controversies like those around the NTC about as much as we do. So, in the spirit of constructive feedback I’d like to offer a suggestion. When you find yourself with a problem before rolling out a solution try engaging the player base on how to solve that problem before and during your development of a solution. I’m not suggesting that you essentially need to create a committee of thousands as that never works. Rather that you start with a basic issue and solicit feedback. From that feedback you may develop a range of possible solutions that you can then float to the community for feedback. This should help guide you away from solutions which are likely to create the kind of storm we saw recently around the NTC proposal. You may or may not find you want additional feedback as you narrow that range of solutions down until your ready to actually drive down a path. Being honest with your player base also helps us understand what it is your actually trying to accomplish. Let’s take the recent Giulio Cesare nerf that was proposed and withdrawn as an example. Were you just concerned about a single ship that was Overperforming? Or was it in fact several ships? Were you primarily concerned with the impact of OP premium ships on the game or was it a need to address them so they could be returned to the premium shop? Or was it a question of how to balance premiums post sale that turned out to be OP despite your best efforts? Or some combination of the above? As you can see there are a range of possibilities and all the community could see was WG walking back a previous policy of not directly nerfing premiums. In the above scenario had you come to the community with what you saw as the problem(s) and asked for input what was far more likely to result was a method to achieve your goals without mass community outrage. Outrage the resulted in the status quo being preserved and therefore denied you the chance to address any of your concerns. Similarly, it would well behold you to engage on a much deeper level with your CC’s. Their reaction to the proposed NTC at the CC summit should have served as warning that your plans as they were needed recasting. Additionally, I would suggest that before rolling out major changes you need to make sure to bring your most important CC’s up to speed on those changes before they get announced. As I noted in another thread that a CC of @LittleWhiteMouse's standing was in the dark on NTC until it got announced to the community at large was lunacy just to cite one example. In the end of course you own the game. You can of course do as you wish at any time. That being said I would suggest that engaging the community as I’m suggesting will create a more involved and more committed player base. It will be a player base that is likely to work harder to recruit others to the game and a player base that (most crucially for you) spends more money. Plus, your odds of spending significant time and resources (and therefore money) creating something that gets met with massive negative reaction and has to then be tossed in the dumpster are significantly lower.
  6. Thirsty13_CCW

    Since everyone's making a thread about it NTC

    To clarify our point . A lot of us are adults that spend real money on this game. We are a big reason the WG staff has jobs. We would like to keep the game solvent too. We are telling WG that they will lose our revenue stream if they push this through. It’s going to make them insolvent. We are customers who spend money. Our opinions are worth listening too. The big picture is that for profit companies rarely succeed by ticking off large portions of their customer base. The near total unanimous hate for the NTC idea is a pretty good indication that it’s going to have a major negative impact on their bottom line if they push it through. Adult management at a for profit company should be paying attention to that.
  7. Thirsty13_CCW

    PSA: Naval Training Center

    With respect to your changes: 1.) A smaller buff is still a buff. Why do you think many clans don't allow rentals for clan play? 2.) Reducing the gap between players in the NTC system still actually enlarges the gap. Because without NTC the gap it creates doesn not exist at all right now. So the haves get richer and the poor get poorer. 3.) If you allow NTC buffs in competitive play you make them mandatory for everyone to have them or you tilt the playing field yet again in favor of the rich. When one player has a buff the other doesn't it's not equal. Period. 4.) Putting lipstick on the pig doesn't make it not be a pig. With respect to your "clarifications" 1.) That one idea isn't going to work doesn't mean you should press forward with an even worse idea. 2.) Sorry but it is a new race to level 11. Either the buff is worth having or its not. 3.) Free consumables DO NOT offset this. Perhaps for those who use zero premium consumables the gap will be a bit smaller. But for many who do the gap just got bigger no ifs ands or butts. Again you can't put lipstick on a pig and make it a Supermodel. 4.) The idea of finding ways for whales to use their accumulated resources and to find new challenges is relevant. But as the CC's told you THIS IS NOT IT. Here is a revolutionary thought. Engage with your CC's and let them help you find a solution. For the last hour I could have been playing the game. Instead I've been writing posts hear thanks to the dumpster fire WG created with this mess. The NTC is about as well conceived an idea as was Pickett's charge up Cemetery Ridge.
  8. Thirsty13_CCW

    Since everyone's making a thread about it NTC

    @Kami @Radar_X You've asked for constructive feedback in other posts. Fair enough. But the recent DevBlog post shows that WG isn't in fact listening. Its just trying to salvage something out of the dumpster fire they've created for themselves. @LittleWhiteMouse is spot on when she notes that either the buffs are good enough to be worth grinding for (and thus mandatory) or their are pointless enough not to be and therefore this whole thing is a waste of time. Its the best single line summation I've seen yet. This whole notion of just shrinking the buffs is almost as stupid and poorly conceived as the original plan. That (by the way) the CC reaction in St. Pete should have told you was a really, really, really, really bad idea. I've been playing this game for about 3.5 years and have around 5200 battles in it. I'm a dad with 2 young kids and a job. Like many in my phase of life my time to play is limited. I've got several T10 ships and a nice collection of premiums but their are quite a few lines I've yet to grind through. I'm not sitting on a hoard of freeXP or credits and I'm not dropping big coin to change that for you. I'm not about to start grinding lines all the way through again when I have lines I've yet to complete let alone grinding that line again and again and again time after time for upgrades. For me clan matches are the best part of the game and clearly as tight as those matches get without all available upgrades your a lamb to the slaughter. So your going to destroy clan matches as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But enough negative. What about something helpful. @Lert identifies a core problem of long time players like himself sitting on hoards of resources that have nowhere to go. WG talks about players having no new challenges since they have every ship available in game. What do you do? 1.) I don't have your data of course but I strongly suspect the number of players sitting on hoards of resources is less than you think. You need to be very careful with exactly how you analyze data and what you think its telling you. So what to do with resources? What about unlocking new modes? Or using them to buy legendary modules vs a pointless and painful grind. Allow players to exchange those resources to turn tech tree ships into premiums with enhanced earning power and a premiums ability to swap captains around. Or perhaps you might just have to live with it. The real issue is keeping long time players engaged it would seem. 1.) Create new Operations. Perhaps Operations which aren't just one battle. Once completed an operation can be re-run at a higher difficulty level (and perhaps higher tier) for greater rewards. 2.) New ship lines, Italian Navy anyone? Or How about some of @Lert's excellent premium ideas. Or Hey I don't know hmmm HOW ABOUT WEST VIRGINA 44!!!!!!!!! 3.) New game modes that are permanent. Bring back Arms race for example and open it to more classes of ships. Why that mode went away is beyond me. 4.) New maps. Try some radical ideas. 5.) How about clan vs clan operations based on historical Naval Battles like Savo Island. One clan defending the transports another trying to destroy them. 6.) Speaking of clan battles you actually need to address and stop cross league matchmaking especially in best of 5 rounds. Expand clan hours and use world wide matchmaking to fill in. Its hard enough often times to get a team together and its worse when you have fixed hours that conflict with other normal life events like putting my kids to bed. 7.) If you have anyone working on subs ahhh no. Cancel that project immediately unless its going to be a sub only mode. 8.) How about a story campaign? A series of operations in essence that you complete as part of a story against bot opponents. You have limited resources I'm sure so their are other things you can spend them on too. Whales are not 100% of your player base. A focus on core game elements is not out of place guys. 1.) The port. How many times have players asked for improvements in the port interface? Why can't we have historical Naval facilities for ports? We have NY but not the shipyard that was there. We have London instead of Portsmouth. Why do we have Hawaii and not Pearl Harbor? I could go on and on. Where is Scapa Flow? Truk Atoll? How about a Ulithi atoll port based on the WWII naval base. You would see every ship you own at anchor at the same time plus the usual service vessels. 2.) Fixes to matchmaker are coming I know but they are long, long overdue. You need to be laser focused on this. 3.) Carriers are not yet fixed. The major issue with the class remains the lack of counter play short of staying in a big lemming train. 4.) You need a training campaign for new players to follow when they come to the game. Teach them how to play and how the game works. 5.) Stop inventing new resources every update. Dear God it gets old after a while. I'd very much like to be grinding some ship lines or perhaps learning how to better play some of my existing ships but now I'm stuck instead in Savage Battle Hell because I need the Fuel Tokens for Benham. I should not be forced into playing these weird battle modes if I don't want to play them. I should be able to earn the same rewards in other PvP battle modes. 6.) Speaking of which clan battles should count for Campaigns and other missions. This is just me off the top of my head. I'd bet if you asked and actually listened to the CC's you would get a bunch of even better ideas. As zoup recently noted the mid tiers seem to have been forgotten and that's a problem. Lastly Do I need to tell you how incredibly rude and stupid it was of you not to brief one of your best and most important CC's @LittleWhiteMouse on a development of this magnitude prior to dropping it on the player base at large? Ohh and when an idea gets universally hated as much as this whole NTC idea is being hated you don't respond by backing up a whee bit and calling it good. You stick the freaking mess in a dumpster and start all over. PS. Do I need to remind you the community told you over and over and over again that carriers were not ready for prime time. You didn't listen did you. You knew better right? How has that worked out folks?
  9. Thirsty13_CCW

    Premium Ship Review #126 - Georgia

    I love my Maime and have a dedicated 19pt secondary build Capt on her. So I was very anxious to get Georgia especially with her box o tricks. A clan mate got her right away and also loved her. I waited for the new coupon to drop and she was mine. Burned the coal and fully kitted her out with my 19pt Maime Capt. This ship is no Maime. She is far too fragile. Way more fragile than the Maime is and those big guns tend to overpen really hurting her damage output. Clearly she can be made to perform but I’m really struggling with her.
  10. Thirsty13_CCW

    WG Gone Wild - Crazy Ships and Strange Times

    Gents might I suggest taking the debate over what to do with premiums that over perform elsewhere? Its not what Zoup was talking about nor is it really germane to the discussion.
  11. Thirsty13_CCW

    WG Gone Wild - Crazy Ships and Strange Times

    @NoZoupForYou I happen to think your spot on. WG is essentially ignoring their chances to make the game better in favor of just throwing lots of new stuff out there. It doesn't mater whether that new stuff is any good or not they just seem focused on getting it out. The problem is each new line and or new ship essentially changes the meta. Which means for the casual player who starts grinding a specific line he may suddenly find that ship line has been eclipsed by the shiny new toy. Which when you consider the time required to actually grind a tech tree line of ships is frustrating in the extreme for the more casual player. @Radar_X, @Femennenly and others you need to listen to Zoup here. Stop rolling out new ships and spend some time focusing on the game. Arms Race needs to be a regular game mode. Ranked needs to be looked at to make it less about being just a pure painful grind. The port interface could really use some work. CV play still needs attention especially in how CVs interact with other ship classes and influence the game. These are the kinds of thing you should be focused on not ships that have clearly been equipped with some new Warp drive system that allows them to suspend the laws of physics. The number of resources to grind has gotten out of hand. You need to get back to basics and focus on creating a better core game experience. Lastly you need to slow the rate at which you introduce new ships so that people who don't spend their entire life playing this game have a chance to actually play what's in the game more than once before the next new shiny toy arrives.
  12. How does delaying the new coupon help people to be able to use it? You could have dropped it on schedule and people would still have had it when the update dropped. Those of us who really wanted to be able to use it on a ship available now just got hosed by this decision.
  13. Thirsty13_CCW

    Something Fishy here

    Can anyone offer an explanation as to how this player with 325 lifetime battles accumulated enough XP to bypass the entire US battleship line and go straight into a Montana? Which of course he’s now playing in ranked. And no it’s NOT a rental. Something seems very fishy here.
  14. Thirsty13_CCW

    55 Knot destroyers

    I know this is a game...... But it’s traditionally at least been one grounded in reality. Iowa class BB’s have 9 16” 50’s because they really did. They have a maximum speed of 33 knots because they really did. Even fictional ship types like the Seattle are grounded in the realities of their era. But these new French DD’s that can run around at 55 knots seem much more like some kids crazy dream than a paper ship that bears any realation to reality. As far as I can tell the Le Fantasque class destroyers are the fastest ever built with one member of that class hitting 45 knots on trials. That’s for a 2600 ton ship on 81000 SHP. The class when refitted for war service saw their top speed fall to 37 knots. So clearly their speed record was set on a very light trial displacement not remotely reflective of service conditions. But know we have a successor class being tested which can run around at 55 knots. A brief study of power/speed requirements will tell you they are exponential. For example a Gearing has a top speed of 36.8 knots according to Wikipedia. That’s on 4 boilers and a rated 60,000 SHP. On two boilers and somewhat less than 1/2 power since you also have to account for hotel loads the class was good for 28 knots in normal service. So 8.8 extra knots takes at least another 30,000 SHP if not more. Which means to get to 45 knots in a Gearing would likely require another 60,000 SHP. So I suspect that in a French DD you would need at least 160,000 SHP on 2 shafts at very light loads to hit 55 knots. That’s nuts. By comparison and Iowa Plant at 212,000 SHP is around 106,000 on 2 shafts. If we push the Iowa into it’s designed in overboost ability (254,000 SHP) that’s 127,000 SHP on two shafts. Does anyone think you can fit half and Iowa plant into a DD hull? And remember even with half an Iowa plant in overboost we are still 33,000 SHP short of our estimate. Clearly we’ve moved beyond the hypothetical (like the Russian BB’s which feature armor and technology that was beyond the capability of the USSR to produce but which at least in theory might have been achievable by someone somewhere) into the realm of ludicrous fantasy. What’s next? An 80 knot destroyer or a 60 knot BB? As long as we are dealing in fantasy why not? Frankly I don’t think fantasy is good for the game. Paper ships are one thing. But these French DD’s are in a completely different league.
×