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

WGing Please Keep Your Promises - Graf Zeppelin

70 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
6 hours ago, BigJohnsonLogan said:

It's currently the most OP premium carrier in the game, so they won't sell it ...

This is literally the type of none sense that infuriates customers with game studios and developers! They release garbage that no one would or should buy; CC's warn the community and advocate for not encouraging greedy marketing practices; players revolt; studio apologizes "Mistakes were made... we'll fix it and re-release; trust us!"; then silence. 

I WANTED this ship, for two accounts, before it was over powered. Wargaming said they would re-release the ship, and they should still keep that promise; even if they have to regulate purchase numbers by making it the most expensive premium ever released - a 'platinum premium' so to speak.

If it is true that they will never re-release this carrier, after saying to everyone publicly that they would, it seriously causes me to reassess whether or not to boycott any future premium purchases from now on; and just leave it at the 32 Premium ships purchased through the store, by doubloons, or through converting doubloons to free xp.

... you know actually, if true, I'm furious. I don't take well to be jerked around by companies, who don't particularly care how their customers feel about their random and whimsical 'business decisions'.

 

 

Graf_2018bc_5913145.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles

I just ran into THREE Graf Zeppelins in matches all player owned (not testing)... this is agony. (Killed one in my Z52)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
5,164 battles

It should be noted false claims on a product is a criminal offense in the states and hiding behind private arbitration won’t save you from the FTC. Ask Volkswagen how that went with dieselgate. EPA wasn’t the main source of the fines it was the FTC because of making false claims. VW tried the private arbitration route on customers early on and got the big smack down by the FTC forcing it back into courts where it got pummeled.

So here is the facts 

GZ was declared fixed about three months ago and the clock started on the sell date. This was the claim. Now as a month ago all carriers have been declared broken and have been so for longer than three months. 

That means a broken products have been sold including the GZ which was declared fixed. At this moment Wargaming is running into a false claim indictment from the FTC if it doesn’t at least release the GZ on schedule. As it is supposedly fixed but isn’t as all carriers are now broken. They are in a mess of trouble the more you dig into this mess.

I also own Enterprise and Kaga both declared broken and needing a fix. So what will it be FTC smackdown or being up front with carrier players.

Edited by GreyFox78659
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,278 posts
3,967 battles

The problem is,  they are already talking about giving refunds to customers who bought premium carriers when the carrier rework starts.   Do they risk selling a ship only to later have to give a bunch of refunds?  Or do they just wait until the 'problem is fixed'?  You also have the unfortunate fact that they overbuffed it when they reworked the GZ but are now stuck with a premium ship on their hands that needs a nerf they can't reasonably give.

Personally?  Not sure what I think or feel.  On the one hand,  I wouldn't mind having it.  Using a carrier that's not USN or IJN would be novel.  But on the other hand,  the thing is freaking broken in a bad way.  It also makes me angry because it does both of its roles ((Torpedoes and bombers)) better than BOTH of the two existing lines.  That's particularly frustrating for USN CV's for whom dive bombers were specifically supposed to be their specialty.  That...that's really an aside,  sorry.

At the end of the day though,  Wargaming promised the community that it'd be sold after three months of being unique to people who purchased it previously.  Regardless of the effect I think it would have on the landscape,  I think its important that WG do as they said they would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
5 hours ago, GreyFox78659 said:

It should be noted false claims on a product is a criminal offense in the states and hiding behind private arbitration won’t save you from the FTC. Ask Volkswagen how that went with dieselgate. EPA wasn’t the main source of the fines it was the FTC because of making false claims. VW tried the private arbitration route on customers early on and got the big smack down by the FTC forcing it back into courts where it got pummeled.

So here is the facts 

GZ was declared fixed about three months ago and the clock started on the sell date. This was the claim. Now as a month ago all carriers have been declared broken and have been so for longer than three months. 

That means a broken products have been sold including the GZ which was declared fixed. At this moment Wargaming is running into a false claim indictment from the FTC if it doesn’t at least release the GZ on schedule. As it is supposedly fixed but isn’t as all carriers are now broken. They are in a mess of trouble the more you dig into this mess.

I also own Enterprise and Kaga both declared broken and needing a fix. So what will it be FTC smackdown or being up front with carrier players.

Amen! I not only totally agree but would be highly inclined to report this as well @GreyFox78659.

ChibiPolice_FTC.thumb.png.d45256a1e00827b64849ee0dd4600b7c.png

 

I really think it's time for WGing to address this, or at least let us know they are going to address it soon ™

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles

@GreyFox78659 It also occurs to me to ask where are the Community Contributors in speaking up about all this? They were the ones begging the community to boycott the original Graf Zeppelin, to throw cold water on WGing's 'legitimate business decisions' to release an incomplete, and last-minute-nerfed, Graf Zeppelin for German GamesCon!

@Notser @NoZoupForYou @iChase I don't know what you CC's think about this? But it seems to me the same CC's that advocated that the ship not be purchased to protect their own reputation from what players would perceive as a false review, and were rightly upset with what WGing did, should also now be leading the demand that WGing keep it's promises? If CC"s are going to advocate for the community through their channels, they should at least be consistent about it, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
5,164 battles
24 minutes ago, KSN said:

@GreyFox78659 It also occurs to me to ask where are the Community Contributors in speaking up about all this? They were the ones begging the community to boycott the original Graf Zeppelin, to throw cold water on WGing's 'legitimate business decisions' to release an incomplete, and last-minute-nerfed, Graf Zeppelin for German GamesCon!

@Notser @NoZoupForYou @iChase I don't know what you CC's think about this? But it seems to me the same CC's that advocated that the ship not be purchased to protect their own reputation from what players would perceive as a false review, and were rightly upset with what WGing did, should also now be leading the demand that WGing keep it's promises? If CC"s are going to advocate for the community through their channels, they should at least be consistent about it, no?

Don’t get me started on the CCs I might get another strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
1 minute ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Don’t get me started on the CCs I might get another strike.

@GreyFox78659 I don't want to incite you to get a forum suspension or anything, but speak up 'together' is the only way to get anyone to listen I would think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,555
[HEROS]
Members
1,831 posts
6,013 battles
Just now, GreyFox78659 said:

Don’t get me started on the CCs I might get another strike.

hi grey fox,

don't get started on anything that will get you another strike, or a temp ban. I can testify that they are not good for you. you will have no way to vent nor rage about your frustrations unless you have friends, GF or spouse that will understand. or a pet like a cat, that will be amused. 

just trying to help, it's what I do besides spudding about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
5,164 battles
32 minutes ago, KSN said:

@GreyFox78659 I don't want to incite you to get a forum suspension or anything, but speak up 'together' is the only way to get anyone to listen I would think? 

I have been vocal in past about my feeling on certain CCs and how they hide behind the community at large when they don’t get their way and what WoWS should do with them. I get the feeling part of the move to Austin was a cleaning house as the CCs haven’t been as vocal about stuff and stirring the masses up recently. I know certain staff that allowed them to get away with stirring up the base are no longer in the company.That being said I know I deserved my strikes and don’t want anymore so I will leave it at that.

Edited by GreyFox78659

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30,896
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,683 posts
8,767 battles
On 5/16/2018 at 4:34 PM, KSN said:

You promised after 3 months it would be available for purchase; please keep your word.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're not remembering what Wargaming said correctly.

meR7CGC.png

They do not promise to sell it after three months.  All this statement says is that they will not sell it for three months after it's been finalized.  There's no language in this statement which predicates them having to sell it after this exclusivity period ends.  They have the option of doing so but they are not bound to do so.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
15 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're not remembering what Wargaming said correctly.

meR7CGC.png

They do not promise to sell it after three months.  All this statement says is that they will not sell it for three months after it's been finalized.  There's no language in this statement which predicates them having to sell it after this exclusivity period ends.  They have the option of doing so but they are not bound to do so.

@LittleWhiteMouse I do appreciate you bringing the quote, but it is an implied promise. If it would never be sold again, then there would be no reason to announce a 3 month exclusive period for original owners; just simple English grammar which WGing used, thereby leaving customers with the expectation that something they were 'fixing' would be made available after a nod of recognition to the original purchasers, who bought a broken and incomplete product.

Not everything has to be explicit and literal, in order for it to be implied. Otherwise there would be no need for attorney's in the world. And this wasn't an EULA, it was a public notification, meant for a common person to read with common understanding.

As a CC shouldn't you be arguing on behalf of the players, instead of engaging in petty symantics on this issue? I have to say I'm slightly disappointed with the position you are taking on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30,896
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,683 posts
8,767 battles
9 minutes ago, KSN said:

@LittleWhiteMouse I do appreciate you bringing the quote, but it is an implied promise.

I'm sure that just about everyone inferred this.  I did myself and it was only when I was looking up for the actual possible sale date that I double checked the quote and found my assumption was mistaken.  I'm sure their language choice was entirely deliberate.  It's too well crafted to simultaneously appease while still leaving them with a boat-load of wiggle room which is precisely what they needed back in late August of 2017.  This is the kind of corporate language that's very precise in what it is saying and it would be a mistake to extrapolate it to mean anything beyond that. 

No one at Wargaming has been able to tell me when Graf Zeppelin is returning.  I am hoping to have a full review done before it shows up.  I can tell you that it's not on the list for my next three ships to review which takes us until mid-July.  But Wargaming doesn't tell me everything so it's entirely possible to sneak it back into the store and blindside us all.

 

Edited by LittleWhiteMouse
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
855
[-K-]
-Members-, WoWS Community Contributors
2,343 posts
10,253 battles
5 minutes ago, KSN said:

@LittleWhiteMouseAs a CC shouldn't you be arguing on behalf of the players, instead of engaging in petty symantics on this issue? I have to say I'm slightly disappointed with the position you are taking on this.

This indicates a fairly large misunderstanding of what the CC program is.  CCs are not player advocates, here to defend the player base from the big game company. CCs are players who have been recognized by WG for the contributions they make to both expanding and awareness of the game and how it works and to improving the community at large. 

They aren't mouthpieces for WG, and they aren't here to "argue on behalf of the players". 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,885
[-K-]
-Members-, Members, Supertester, WoWS Community Contributors
5,516 posts
17,789 battles

The pre-order ships (Yubari, Sims, Gremyaschy) were all sold with the promise of not being sold again for one year.  Gremyaschy has never been sold.

Stroll down memory lane with this thread which speculates whether or not the ships will be sold again.

So by the OP's logic, WG owed us a Gremyaschy sale in 2016.  

Edited by Lord_Zath
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,878
[HINON]
Modder, Privateers
6,796 posts
4,616 battles

I was under the same implication as well, however a second look at the wording, reveals an indeterminate amount of time for a re-release.

 

No promise has been broken, given that no timeframe was ever given. You can't break a timeframe that was never stated in the first place.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,278 posts
3,967 battles
48 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're not remembering what Wargaming said correctly.

meR7CGC.png

They do not promise to sell it after three months.  All this statement says is that they will not sell it for three months after it's been finalized.  There's no language in this statement which predicates them having to sell it after this exclusivity period ends.  They have the option of doing so but they are not bound to do so.

Oh dang it,  political double talk.  Whelp,  they are under no obligation to release it,  not even a verbal contract.  Just that original buyers would have that three months exclusivity.  Ah well,  que sera,

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
14 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I'm sure that just about everyone inferred this.  I did myself and it was only when I was looking up for the actual possible sale date that I double checked the quote and found my assumption was mistaken.  I'm sure their language choice was entirely deliberate.  It's too well crafted to simultaneously appease while still leaving them with a boat-load of wiggle room which is precisely what they needed back in late August of 2017.  This is the kind of corporate language that's very precise in what it is saying and it would be a mistake to extrapolate it to mean anything beyond that. 

No one at Wargaming has been able to tell me when Graf Zeppelin is returning.  I am hoping to have a full review done before it shows up.  I can tell you that it's not on the list for my next three ships to review which takes us until mid-July.  But Wargaming doesn't tell me everything so it's entirely possible to sneak it back into the store and blindside us all.

 

I do appreciate the feedback @LittleWhiteMouse ; I was a purchaser for the Graf Zeppelin, I was excitedly ready to push the button for both mine and my son's account; over $100.00 USD ready to spend. And then multiple trusted CC's published warnings, the most famous of which was from @iChase . So I refrained, scared of two things: Buying a incomplete and broken product; and harming the WoWS community by being complicit in supporting an action by WGing that wasn't right and harmful.

After waiting patiently, still being a loyal customer, not complaining or ranting, but instead being understanding of the iteration process and wanting to see something done well and correctly in the production and testing of the Graf Zeppelin. 

I'm just wanting to call attention to this, because I'm starting very much to feel cheated out of this ship I had adrently wanted; and stuck between the 'business decisions' of a large corporation that oscillates between sincere consideration for their players, and irreverence and the Community Contributors that pleaded publicly not to buy the ship, or at least know that it had changed and they were no longer recommending it, who have gone completely silent like Zeppelin-gate never happened; it's on to new reviews and maintaining Youtube ad revenue.

So there I sit, as a loyal customer, stuck between two monoliths, and just wanting to play the first CV I was REALLY looking forward to, and keep my promise to my teenage son (an avid CV player) to purchase one for him to.... and atm all I'm left with is unfulfilled expectations for the release of the Graf Zeppelin, and feeling like and idiot for listening to the CC's that said don't buy it.

... its a pretty frustrating mess.

None the less I appreciate you taking the time to post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
27 minutes ago, SeaRaptor00 said:

This indicates a fairly large misunderstanding of what the CC program is.  CCs are not player advocates, here to defend the player base from the big game company. CCs are players who have been recognized by WG for the contributions they make to both expanding and awareness of the game and how it works and to improving the community at large. 

They aren't mouthpieces for WG, and they aren't here to "argue on behalf of the players". 

I guess I grew up differently @SeaRaptor00... that "if you break it you fix it".

The CC's that told player's not to buy something to protect both the community and their reputations is advocacy. I just happen to think that those particular CC's should also finish that advocacy, and not just wash their hands of those that followed their public advocacy.

And with CC's being players, its not expected, but would be nice if they were to also support worthy causes; but that's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[STURM]
Members
521 posts
4,357 battles
48 minutes ago, KSN said:

As a CC shouldn't you be arguing on behalf of the players, instead of engaging in petty symantics on this issue? I have to say I'm slightly disappointed with the position you are taking on this.

Direct your anger at people who deserve it. Mouse isn't the one playing semantics, she was pointing out how WG was.

As for the GZ itself, I would bet that it will not be put in the shop until the carrier rework rolls around. As she is now, she is way too powerful against all surface ships. I can understand her effectiveness against BBs, as some ships are specialized against other classes and are still balanced. What I cannot get behind is her effectiveness against CAs offensively, with massive DB squadrons blunting the effect of Defensive Fire and ensuring that even lots of overpens will hurt, and her defensive effectiveness against DDs, with hydro letting her torpedo-beat easily and secondaries making staying near her risky at best.

And while WG has pretty much never nerfed premium ships specifically, sweeping mechanic changes have nerfed some in the past. Gremyashchy and Błyskawica did lose some power with the removal of stealth firing, for example. So, that leaves pretty much two likely options, in my opinion:

  • WG made the current iteration of GZ super-powerful on purpose to drum up hype for it's wider release after the carrier rework, when it has been brought down to a more reasonable level.
  • WG made the current iteration of GZ super-powerful on accident, and don't want to release it until after the carrier rework, when it has been brought down to a more reasonable level.

I really hope it is the latter, but the fact that they sold the König Albert again after heavily implying that it would never be sold again after the last time they put it in shop has damaged my trust somewhat.

I suppose they could release it as is before the rework, or keep it stupidly powerful after the rework, or just not sell it, but I don't think that would go over well with anybody.

Edited by Baskerville77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
21 minutes ago, Lord_Zath said:

The pre-order ships (Yubari, Sims, Gremyaschy) were all sold with the promise of not being sold again for one year.  Gremyaschy has never been sold.

Stroll down memory lane with this thread which speculates whether or not the ships will be sold again.

So by the OP's logic, WG owed us a Gremyaschy sale in 2016.  

@Lord_Zath Not really sure what you're on about here, but I'm not saying we are 'owed' anything regarding the Graf Zeppelin. The title of the thread says ... please keep your promise. It's a request, a submission for relief; because I for one do not want the Graf Zeppelin to go into deep freeze and never again see the light of day, like the Imperator Nikolai (which I missed because having a life I can't check the premium shop every day for that one time offer that was never publicly announced and still burns that I missed it).

If your cool with the Graf Zeppelin never being released again, then your free to do so, I for one believe WGing needs to be reminded there are those of us that were caught between two contradicting forces and were simply stuck in the middle patiently waiting for a re-release of this ship; because I really want to see this ship again, soon, and to be able to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
834
[WOLF8]
Members
5,256 posts
5,051 battles

I pretty much halted my grind going up both of the CV line (USN & IJN), because it was announced that CV rework is in the works, and that all the Premium CV's may not ever be sold again until the rework is realized.

What blows is that this could mean Graf Zepplin is pretty much out of reach for me. I'm kinda in a same bote (lol pun) as OP, being an admirer of German ships in this game, especially the German BB's. Additionally, this whole CV mess also means my Azur Lane captain Enterprise is stuck without her namesake ship as well.

Meh... what can I say? I might as well as just cross my fingers and wait.

Edited by Blorgh2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
9 minutes ago, Baskerville77 said:

Direct your anger at people who deserve it. Mouse isn't the one playing semantics, she was pointing out how WG was.

As for the GZ itself, I would bet that it will not be put in the shop until the carrier rework rolls around. As she is now, she is way too powerful against all surface ships. I can understand her effectiveness against BBs, as some ships are specialized against other classes and are still balanced. What I cannot get behind is her effectiveness against CAs offensively, with massive DB squadrons blunting the effect of Defensive Fire and ensuring that even lots of overpens will hurt, and her defensive effectiveness against DDs, with hydro letting her torpedo-beat easily and secondaries making staying near her risky at best.

And while WG has pretty much never nerfed premium ships specifically, sweeping mechanic changes have nerfed some in the past. Gremyashchy and Błyskawica did lose some power with the removal of stealth firing, for example. So, that leaves pretty much two likely options, in my opinion:

  • WG made the current iteration of GZ super-powerful on purpose to drum up hype for it's wider release after the carrier rework, when it has been brought down to a more reasonable level.
  • WG made the current iteration of GZ super-powerful on accident, and don't want to release it until after the carrier rework, when it has been brought down to a more reasonable level.

I really hope it is the latter, but the fact that they sold the König Albert again after heavily implying that it would never be sold again after the last time they put it in shop has damaged my trust somewhat.

I suppose they could release it as is before the rework, or keep it stupidly powerful after the rework, or just not sell it, but I don't think that would go over well with anybody.

@Baskerville77 I have no anger towards LWM, I very much appreciate the contributions to the community. LWM's reviews are far more intensive and frankly challenging than any youtube video review; and I love the graphics and chibi characters. So if you felt I was attacking LWM, it's a misunderstanding.

I just respectfully disagree with the possition of only pointing out the flaw of the argument, and that was what I was partially reacting to. I never thought saying you were disappointed in someones position could be seen as attacking, but the era we live in now is far more PC and hyper-sensitive, than when I grew up; though her subsequent post illuminated a lot, and other posts cleared some misperception of mine. The knowledge gained from LWM's follow up post, particularly that there is no release of the Graf Zeppelin on the horizon, helps alleviate this haze of ambiguity around this ship - even if not promising news. That alone is greatly appreciated and respected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30,896
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,683 posts
8,767 battles
32 minutes ago, KSN said:

... its a pretty frustrating mess.

This largely describes the Aircraft Carrier situation as a whole in World of Warships.  You're not the only player frustrated by the present situation.  You sit in good company with others that have missed out on something they wanted but also with long time veterans that enjoy the current CV play that have paid for ships like Enterprise, Saipan, Graf Zeppelin, Kaga.  This also includes players who spent money on doubloons to convert free experience to accelerate unlocking Hakuryu / Midway or retraining commanders to take advantage of optimal skill slots.  Players that enjoy or are invested in Aircraft Carriers are in a rough spot things are not going to get better in the short term.  While we can hope that everything comes out for the best and (almost) everyone will be happy, the reality is that there's more frustration on the horizon for many players.  Hopefully it won't be a majority of players.

29 minutes ago, KSN said:

I guess I grew up differently @SeaRaptor00... that "if you break it you fix it".

The CC's that told player's not to buy something to protect both the community and their reputations is advocacy. I just happen to think that those particular CC's should also finish that advocacy, and not just wash their hands of those that followed their public advocacy.

And with CC's being players, its not expected, but would be nice if they were to also support worthy causes; but that's just my opinion.

Kay, I'm tapping out after this.  You're misdirecting your frustration and you're not being fair.

  • Community Contributors reviewed a Work in Progress version of Graf Zeppelin that became out-of-date when Wargaming made their overnight changes.
  • Community Contributors were given no chance to amend their impressions of this new Graf Zeppelin and feared players would be misled by their old content. 
  • Community Contributors rushed to release amended reviews cautioning players that the product being delivered was in an unfinished state
  • Community Contributors urged the players to protect their wallets and not spend money on a broken product.

Contrast this with:

  • Wargaming founded the Community Contributor program, giving content-creators early access to ships in order to build hype.
  • Wargaming made overnight changes to Graf Zeppelin and released a different product than the Community Contributors had reviewed.
  • Wargaming released an untested, broken product.
  • Wargaming tried to tell players to "git gud" when players expressed frustration at the broken state of their product.
  • Wargaming pulled their product.
  • Wargaming sets the sale dates.
  • Wargaming decides what gets sold and what gets shelved.

Your beef is with Wargaming, not with the Community Contributors.  The Community Contributors  wanted to make sure you had all of the information you needed to make the right buying decision for yourself, even when Wargaming made delivering said information in a timely manner impossible.  Wargaming wanted to sell you your dream ship in a half-finished state, obfuscate the poor quality of said product and charge you a premium for the privilege.  And you're cross with us?  You need to re-assess your priorities.

Edited by LittleWhiteMouse
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,278 posts
3,967 battles

@LittleWhiteMouse From what I can gather of the rework on CV's,  I think a lot more people will enjoy it than currently do.  If I'm right on the clues I am picking up,  its going to simplify the system while making it more immersive,  for lack of a better word,  while simplifying the way ships interact with planes.  On the hunch front,  I think it will reduce the amount of alpha damage CV's do while shortening the turn around time on sending out waves of planes.  So I think more of the general audience will enjoy the rework both from a CV view and from the other class view and I think...a number of the current CV players will at least be willing to give it a shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×