Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'letter to wg'.
Found 1 result
(This letter is not meant to correct anything; in the sense it would fulfill any kind of entitlement i might have. Seriously though, I have no hostilities regarding this split.) Hey WG. First off I think its really cool that we've finally gotten to the point were we're ready for our first battleship split. I especially think its cool that the USN gets that honor, they deserved it. Me and many from the NA community are rather confused and concerned with the direction the new Battleship Split is going. For those who haven't seen any pictures, here's what the split currently looks like: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/45 phpdEKbfc.jfif phpBIhchc.jfif phpgMJbAl.jfif phpGDDCpP.jfif And so we come to our first concern. We're vastly confused with these ship choices, literally no one saw these coming. Out of the plethora of USN battleships, why is there a need to choose entirely fictitious ships? The community has always envisioned a split to somewhat of this extent: VII: Tennessee / Pennsylvania VIII: South Dakota / Washington IX: Washington / New Jersey / Wisconsin / 1940s Draft Design X: New Jersey (cold war refit) / Wisconsin (cold war refit) / Louisiana (Montana class with cold war refit) / BB 38C / 1945 Draft Design Out of the following: Michigan, Delaware, Florida (BB-30), Utah, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Idaho, Tennessee, Maryland, All 6 cancelled South Dakota Class Battleships, Washington, South Dakota, Indiana, BB 38C, New Jersey, Wisconsin, The 2 cancelled Iowa Class, and the 3 other cancelled Montana class, as well as the Tillman battleships. Why choose COMPLETELY fictitious ships? That's 32 battleships to choose from your source material. YOU KNOW a portion of your audience is here for the historical portion of your game, so why limit that? Our second concern: Doesn't it seam a bit silly to base an entire tech tree line of ships on a single premium that was not well received? I.E. the California... Now we all know stats are preliminary and subject to change. However I can't recall the last time I witnessed a ship change conceptually since its development. (Exempt: Puolo Emilio) These ships need to change conceptually. I'm not going to go into the stats of these ships because if anything is likely to change its the stats. OUR SOLUTION: 1st solution: Change these ships conceptually. Change how they play. Slow ships are not always fun, supper inaccurate ships are not always fun, squishy ships are not always fun, AA is rarely fun, what do you think will happen if you combine all of these terrible things? 2nd solution: (the best solution) Put these ships on the back burner and work on something else for a little while. Qwerky, weird, stand-alone ships don't belong in a tech tree anyways, they belong in the premium shop, the armory and the research bureau. Yes, that means we probably wont get a USN Battleship split in 0.9.7 or 0.9.8 or whenever you have it planed. THAT IS OKAY. It's better to have it done right and to have to wait, then to not have it right. And this my friends, is not right. And I guess that more or less concludes this invitation to WG... An invitation, or rather a plea, to please change this Battleship split. sincerely, a consumer, and the community.