Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Gully_Foyle_AS128127006

ARP Ship Cammo

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
327 posts
14,961 battles

tldr:  would like operational cammo for the ARP ships, please.

 

I would like to play them but their faux cammo puts them at a disadvantage.  

 

I hope WG will consider providing a permanent cammo upgrade for gold or a battle by battle cammo option for silver.  Same (contractual) color schemes, of course - just with some functionality to them.

 

For the Kongos, Tier V - it's not that bad given they are BBs, it's Tier V, they get spotted anyways, and they have BB armor - except, given their lack of functional cammo, the comparative nerf to their concealment and buff to incoming fire does tend to lead some players to sniping badly from max range with the usual bad results.

 

For the Myoko clones and the Takao (Atago), it just gets worse because of their CA armor and the higher likelihood players will punish those weaknesses to concealment and non-dispersion cammo.

 

I'm not even asking for cammo with an EXP bonus - simply the normal low percentage boost to concealment and nerf to incoming fire dispersion - though, for a gold/permanent cammo a 30-50% exp bonus earning  + dispersion nerf and concealment buff would be welcomed. 

 

To be clear - I really do appreciate the free (for playing) ships and I have no issue with Japanese anime having a presence in the game - that doesn't worry me at all.  I just am hesitant to play these ships anywhere other than co op (which bets boring) since the meta puts them at this kind of disadvantage.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
825
[ARMDA]
Members
9,004 posts
6,506 battles

The collab between ARP and WG is over, WG cannot touch the ARP ships now. I think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[SOV]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,873 posts
11,648 battles

Oddly enough the ARP versions seem to perform as well, if not better than their tech tree versions even without the ability to mount camo (across all servers). I'm not opposed to the idea but I just don't see the pressing need to make this happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
256
[WG-CC]
[WG-CC]
Wiki Editor, Members
855 posts
9,538 battles

Oddly enough the ARP versions seem to perform as well, if not better than their tech tree versions even without the ability to mount camo (across all servers). I'm not opposed to the idea but I just don't see the pressing need to make this happen.

 

I'd venture to say that results from more experienced players at the helm. So many people play the tech tree versions, that stats aren't necessarily representative of the ship's capabilities when an experienced player is at the helm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[SOV]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,873 posts
11,648 battles

 

I'd venture to say that results from more experienced players at the helm. So many people play the tech tree versions, that stats aren't necessarily representative of the ship's capabilities when an experienced player is at the helm.

 

Well, there is more to it than that (namely, skipping the "stock" grind) but I don't know if I would agree with it being more experienced players. I would think experienced players keeping the Kongo or Myoko would prefer the tech tree version because of the ability to mount camo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,471
[SWFSH]
[SWFSH]
Volunteer Moderator
2,629 posts
7,415 battles

The collab between ARP and WG is over, WG cannot touch the ARP ships now. I think...

It's an awkward relation really. ARP owns the visual representation (skins), effects, captains, and voice acting.

But WG owns the sounds (guns, engines, hits... etc), numbers (they're identical to their copies), and the actual model the skin is pasted onto.

 

WG could implement it so you may mount a camoflage on the ship, except it will be hidden under the ARP skin. The effect of the camo will still happen - but the ARP skin will still be all the player sees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,116 posts
10,974 battles

The difference between a WG Myoko and an ARP Myoko would be,  at best,  0.4km detection.  Best you can get on a WG Myoko now is 11.2km with CE skill and the -3% detection camo,  would be 11.6km on an ARP Myoko with CE and ARP camo.  On a DD that's a big difference,  on a Myoko with it's painfully slow gun loading and wonky torp launchers,  not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
327 posts
14,961 battles

tldr:  The higher tier you are up against the more magnified the ARP ship nerf/buff to concealment/incoming fire dispersion tends to be.

My request is along the lines of keeping all audio/visual elements exactly the same - including skins.  

Just that the operational abilities of the skins could take advantage of concealment buffs, incoming fire dispersion nerfs, and potentially an exp buff on a premium cammo basis.  

Just so they can operate on a level playing field with their contemporaries.  Yes, the concealment buff and dispersion nerfs are low percentage.  That's not the point.  It still makes a difference.  And I think it is noticeable.

Here's an example.  It is unscienfific but I think the differences are clear.

When I first grinded the tech tree Myoko I ended up selling it after 113 battles after I earned the first ARP Myoko.  I have not played the tech tree Myoko since.  Not in 6 months(?)  Not since you could first earn the ARP Myoko in any case.

 

Some time has passed.

 

Tech Tree Myoko
34K damage average, 976 avg exp, 2.0 K/D, Survival 53%, WTR 1143   -  not great but that's not the point.

Played the ARP Myoko 158 battles since and, obviously, with more gameplay experience over time:

 

ARP Myoko

38K average damage, 1002 avg exp, .6 K/D, Survival 27%, WTR 1093

 

Quite simply, one ship is more vulnerable than the other.

And that's okay.  I could certainly get myself another tech tree Myoko but that would be a shame given the uniqueness to the ships - obviously, NOT their unique inability to mount cammo.

The Kongo clones are okay but I'm not married to them.  I like the Myoko and the Takao.  But when potentially facing Tier IX in the ARP Myoko and Tier X in the Takao, concealment and shell dispersion is magnified - if only because the player base can and often does know to exploit it - just as I do in other ships when I come across ARP targets because I know they're going to have to go further to conceal and my shells will disperse less when I fire at them.

Obviously not a burning issue when all is said and done but an issue just the same.

I think offering an upgrade to the cammo specs (not their appearance) to keep them competitive with their tech tree cousins is the right thing to do.

Or not - in which case they'll gather dust in port or get used for laughs in co op - and that would be a shame IMO.

Edited by Gully_Foyle_AS128127006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
770
[TXGUN]
[TXGUN]
Members
4,596 posts
13,535 battles

I frankly don't care for their camo and have removed them from my port. I am not into the anime myself and just bought the tech tree ships. I played them a couple times but cant stand how the camo sticks out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KNTAI]
Members
3,134 posts
9,120 battles

I wonder why we can't. Something along the lines of the effect being active, but not the looks if you have it enabled on the the ship carousel? Let me expend that extra 22k per match, you fools! :angry:

 

I guess it has to do with something technical. But I wouln't think it'd be that hard to enable it either... Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,566
[O_O]
Members
7,897 posts
22,101 battles

I frankly don't care for their camo and have removed them from my port. I am not into the anime myself and just bought the tech tree ships. I played them a couple times but cant stand how the camo sticks out.

 

Is the ARP skin really any more annoying and ugly than either of the Halloween camo's?  Or Ocean soul camo?  Or restless fire?  Or...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
327 posts
14,961 battles

 

Is the ARP skin really any more annoying and ugly than either of the Halloween camo's?  Or Ocean soul camo?  Or restless fire?  Or...

 

Frankly, I think the premium cammos which came with the Graf Spee and all the Christmas Convoy ships are ugly - looks like a skin of random swatches of paper currency.  

 

Useful and I like them and mount them for their practicality but I think they kind of  wreck the "look" of the ship.  

 

That said, the ARP skins are so "East German Disco," I actually like them - just wish a low rent concealment buff and shell dispersion nerf like the period cammos option could be worked into them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
327 posts
14,961 battles

I wonder why we can't. Something along the lines of the effect being active, but not the looks if you have it enabled on the the ship carousel? Let me expend that extra 22k per match, you fools! :angry:

 

I guess it has to do with something technical. But I wouln't think it'd be that hard to enable it either... Oh well.

 

If they can't touch the neon cammo, even so far as what it does (which is nothing), why not create an ARP signal flag which effectively does the same thing (concealment buff, dispersion nerf), which can be purchased like cammo at cammo prices, and even be battle earnable while only using ARP ships?  

 

I mean, we can fly signal flags on ARP ships all day long, eight at a time or none at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
14,008 posts
5,814 battles

 

If they can't touch the neon cammo, even so far as what it does (which is nothing), why not create an ARP signal flag which effectively does the same thing (concealment buff, dispersion nerf), which can be purchased like cammo at cammo prices, and even be battle earnable while only using ARP ships?  

 

I mean, we can fly signal flags on ARP ships all day long, eight at a time or none at all.

 

1. An ARP flag already exists without the bonus.

2. The contract has ended do WG can't make another ARP flag. At least not one using Arpeggio owned graphics and symbols, or affiliated with ARP.

3. Other non ARP ships would be able to stack the flag on top of the camo+CE+concealment module, which leads us back to square one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
327 posts
14,961 battles

 

1. An ARP flag already exists without the bonus.

2. The contract has ended do WG can't make another ARP flag. At least not one using Arpeggio owned graphics and symbols, or affiliated with ARP.

3. Other non ARP ships would be able to stack the flag on top of the camo+CE+concealment module, which leads us back to square one.

 

I am talking about a specific to ARP ship SIGNAL flag which would conceivably provide similar buffs and nerfs tech tree ship cammo presently offers.

 

Personally, I'm just looking for a way to keep the ARP ships I have - Takao and all the Kongos and all the Myokos - attractive to play.  At very least they are ships which can earn their daily exp bonus.  If they are played, that is.

 

A signal flag wouldn't conceivably and specifically reference the Arpeggio universe at all or have any overt affiliation, except that it would be a signal flag which you could only place of ARP ships and could be purchased for silver or gold (if it had a premium exp buff, that is), and function just like tech tree paint ---> provide the very same buff to concealment, nerf to incoming fire dispersion, and potentially offer a buff to exp earnings at a premium. 

 

The idea being to provide ARP ships with the ability to kit out similar buffs and nerfs tech tree ships have available for use WITHOUT impinging on whatever ARP contractual agreements over ARP ship appearance presently remain in place.

 

Or just make the bonus inherent to the neon ARP cammo - activated, of course, by purchase - be it silver or gold, just like tech tree cammo.  

 

The signal flag idea is simply a workaround for not touching anything inherent to the ARP ships themselves.  

 

We have always been able to run signal flags on the ARP ships so contractually I can't imagine what any contractual roadblock would be in that regard.

Actually, I can - it would take some sort of programming to make it work and that takes money.  I'm fine if WG chooses not to address this concern but it's a shame.  

 

Until then, ARP ships will play at a disadvantage which becomes more magnified at higher tiers.  Or, in my case, they will be played rarely and probably just in co op for giggles.

 

The T5 Kongo clones, not that huge of a deal because they are BBs and it's T5 - though usually uptiered to T7.  Plus their lack of practical cammo disadvantage I believe contributes to more ARP Kongo drivers choosing to snipe badly from max range.

The T7 Myoko clones, bigger deal because of CA armor, the roles they play particularly early in a battle, and the potential of facing T9.

The T8 Atago clone (Takao), same as the Myokos but also regularly up against T9-10 where the effects from early detection and less dispersed incoming shells are clearly more magnified.

 

Barring the random potatoes, I believe most players understand the ARP ships will have to gain more distance to find concealment than their tech tree counterparts and they know their salvos will disperse less when firing at them, and naturally they take advantage of this - I certainly do when I face them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,880
[WTFS]
Members
9,331 posts
13,756 battles

I never understood why, since they're premium ships, the benefits weren't automatically added into the color scheme to begin with, just with no option to remove it. I'd be fine with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
327 posts
14,961 battles

I never understood why, since they're premium ships, the benefits weren't automatically added into the color scheme to begin with, just with no option to remove it. I'd be fine with that.

 

I'm even fine with their being no premium benefits to the ships, but I would like the option to equip them to perform on a less uneven playing field.  Specifically, concealment and incoming fire dispersion - but an exp buff would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
327 posts
14,961 battles

Much ado about Nothing.  Ya' got some FREE ships and now they just aren't to your liking?  Cry me a river.

 

What " much ado?"  A post to a gameplay discussion forum.  Hyperbole much?  Not to mention your "much ado" over gameplay discussion IN a Gameplay Discussion forum.  

 

To your much ado:  

 

Yep - free ships which are gimped and are not as competitive as they could be otherwise.  And not "now," it was clear from the outset.

 

One solution is to not play them competitively.  No problem.  But a shame since they are ships and do possess their daily X-earning/first win, and that typically this becomes subsequently gimped by the meta.  

 

Another solution would be to offer an option to mount the same silver or gold cammo characteristics tech tree ships have available.  And that is conceivably within WG's power if they chose to do so.

 

And there's YOUR solution, which is no solution (or even particularly constructive), which is to condescend like a tool.

 

Cry your own river over gameplay discussion in Gameplay Discussion, tool.

Edited by Gully_Foyle_AS128127006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×