Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Cit_the_bed

So why are T5 ships no longer allowed in scenarios?

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

133
[TFLT]
[TFLT]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
657 posts
8,003 battles

Many people felt that all the T5's in the match were gimping their chances of winning the game.  There's some truth to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
296
[ARP3]
Members
420 posts
10,504 battles

Bad players in general were gimping the chances of winning.

 

All of that work to make scenarios and to limit it to 1/10th of the ships in the game is just poor design.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
685 posts
5,970 battles

I personally think this is bad. I've seen enough times Emile Bertins triumphing and Clevelands running off to who knows where in scenarios and getting himself killed, or New Yorks that moved up and devastated enemies while the allied Fuso sat back and did little. Bad players ruin chances, not ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,336
[PVE]
Members
5,660 posts
18,248 battles

There were a metric butt ton of complaints on this forum about using the Dunkirk destroyers with the 19 point captains in the other scenarios. They really weren't suited for anything but the Dunkirk mission IMHO and destroyers as a whole can really struggle in some of the other missions. Don't remember lots of complaints about tier 5s in general though. Lots of posts about "I did really great but had a potato team", you know the usual whine. What makes me angry is that they decide that fighting freaking bots with the tier 5s is bad yet defend the +2/-2 against human players. So much stupid it makes my head hurt. There are plenty of crap tier 6's I wouldn't take into missions like Aoba and Graf Spee (your mileage may vary) and lots of tier 5s that I was quite successful in missions with like the Furry Taco and Texas. As with anything in this game, it all depends on how well a player manages his ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
903
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,463 posts
8,136 battles

Part of it likely stems from back when we had Dunkirk, and people were able to get into other operations in those DD's, and felt they hurt the team (Several times I used them there and was one of the top players, and/or last to die in those kind of losses), others well, they just cry cause it means a worse player can get in sooner. All you do is prevent someone like me that can usually stomp bots with whatever I grab from using tier 5's and make the noobs/skill-less players wait a whole extra tier to join in to something that may actually help them while being more fun than standard bot battles.

 

Dumb move in my opinion, but, unless it's properly balancing CV's, whine enough you get what you want I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,488
[O_O]
Members
4,427 posts
9,600 battles

Bad players are going to be bad players.  However, when a scenario seems difficult and players bring a T5 when they could have brought a T6, it creates even more rage when the scenario is not successful.

Having said that, good players are going to be good players.  They can contribute to or even carry a win even with a T5.

The frequent raging over T5 ships ruining the team's chance (it is the player, not the ship) was probably the largest factor in this change.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6 posts
1,385 battles

This change has me up in arms.  I am mostly Bummed.  Was hoping to see more ships get access to coop missions.  If you think about...... why remove features that attract players to your game?  Wouldn't you want to expand on those to attract more?  the game already plays casually, what with its slow pace and all.  IMHO coop mission gameplay lends itself well to the casual player base more so than the random battles.  and all their stupid micro transactions still benefit the same. seems like such a stupid move from WG to me :cap_fainting:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,367
[SYN]
Members
4,549 posts
11,437 battles

Aegis is fine, but the other three scenarios seem to be very difficult to complete with all stars.  Perhaps making them a little less clever and elaborate would help?  More like Aegis which is, by comparison, more straightforward than the other scenarios, enjoyable, and achievable.  I don't even bother with the other scenarios anymore, but when Aegis comes around I'm right into it.

 

Taking away Tier Vs does not improve the situation in any way, as anyone who actually plays this game and has a shred of sense will have already realized.  Frankly, that was a stupid response.

 

One wonders about the thinking behind some of the decisions made with this game...  :fish_palm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,270
[NERO]
Members
3,542 posts

Well, it's definitely easier to balance an experience for one tier than a range of tiers. They're already having to balance around a variety of team compositions, right? It's not ideal, no, but hopefully they take the opportunity to use the tighter constraints to make the scenarios more fun and finely crafted experiences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×