Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Berlimawurst

The GZ Represents Everything Bad That WG Can Think of

54 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

80
[HE]
Members
176 posts
2,336 battles

I have discovered many OP design of GZs in the past,

but here I found a new one:

One squad of the GZ bombers can dealt 7300+ damage to a tier VIII DD with defensive AA on?

Is the defensive AA useless against those bombers?

When WG staff explained why they gave Asashio only deep water torps, he said that "we do not want to confuse the players with what type of torps are being used so players know whether they can hit them for sure"

But look at GZ: HE bombs, AP bombs, regular torps, DW torps, two load out, etc...

It is interesting how a ship that only went on sale once can bring so much anger to many players.

Edited by Berlimawurst
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,820
Members
5,575 posts
7,121 battles

GZ is a pretty sore subject.

It's one of only a few times that the majority of the community agreed on something.

When the CV rework comes in, maybe things will be different.

Chances are they'll screw that up too..

Edited by Wulfgarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[HE]
Members
520 posts
8,960 battles
1 minute ago, Wulfgarn said:

GZ is a pretty sore subject.

It's one of only a few times that the majority of the community agreed on something.

When the CV rework comes in, maybe things will be different.

I disagree with the OP.

The design of GZ is not fully WG's fault.

The first version of GZ was weak as I heard of, so WG took it back and modified the ship based on "popular demand" and "some CC's opinions" (you know who those players are!) 

They are the ones that benefits from the failed CV design and GZ they made.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
808
[POP]
Members
1,467 posts
17,157 battles
14 minutes ago, Berlimawurst said:

I have discovered many OP design of GZs in the past,

but here I found a new one:

One squad of the GZ bombers can dealt 7300+ damage to a tier VIII DD with defensive AA on?

Is the defensive AA useless against those bombers?

When WG staff explained why they gave Asashio only deep water torps, he said that "we do not want to confuse the players with what type of torps are being used so players know whether they can hit them for sure"

But look at GZ: HE bombs, AP bombs, regular torps, DW torps, two load out, etc...

It is interesting how a ship that only went on sale once can bring so much anger to many players.

Oh great another Graf Zeppelin bashing post :Smile_facepalm: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,820
Members
5,575 posts
7,121 battles
21 minutes ago, Plaatduutsch said:

I disagree with the OP.

The design of GZ is not fully WG's fault.

The first version of GZ was weak as I heard of, so WG took it back and modified the ship based on "popular demand" and "some CC's opinions" (you know who those players are!) 

They are the ones that benefits from the failed CV design and GZ they made.

The GZ ws given to CCs in one form. After the CCs gave their reviews, WG changed the GZ to something completely different.

The majority of the community was upset that WG pulled another fast one, so there was major outcry and something needed to be done.

They released it around the time of a major event, I think it was Gamescon or something similar. Theres a pretty funny interview of WG being asked questions about the ship. They did all they could to change the subject. 

All of that was before they started open testing with the community.

 

Edited by Wulfgarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,829
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

I will Buy the Graf Zeppelin  no matter what its eventual Build it become. "It is a German Engineering Marvel"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,005
[RLGN]
Members
10,112 posts
19,510 battles
3 minutes ago, Wulfgarn said:

When the CV rework comes in, maybe things will be different.

Somehow I’m doubting it.

The desire to turn carriers into just another unit may wind up destroying them further than they already are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,820
Members
5,575 posts
7,121 battles
6 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Somehow I’m doubting it.

The desire to turn carriers into just another unit may wind up destroying them further than they already are.

 

22 minutes ago, Wulfgarn said:

GZ is a pretty sore subject.

It's one of only a few times that the majority of the community agreed on something.

When the CV rework comes in, maybe things will be different.

Chances are they'll screw that up too..

:cap_like:

Edited by Wulfgarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,485
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,702 posts
611 battles
14 minutes ago, Plaatduutsch said:

I disagree with the OP.

The design of GZ is not fully WG's fault.

The first version of GZ was weak as I heard of, so WG took it back and modified the ship based on "popular demand" and "some CC's opinions" (you know who those players are!) 

They are the ones that benefits from the failed CV design and GZ they made.

 

How is it not fully WG's fault? They released it first, it was awful. They released it again, it's outrageously overpowered.

 

This is entirely WG's fault. Whether the current performance stems from the hope to redeem themselves to previous Graf Zep owners or a lack of testing and complete reliance on CC input, WG is still the last word in what makes it into the game and what doesn't.

 

And now we're stuck with an outrageously overpowered ship that they probably won't change, but will just never sell again. So those that are already in the game, we're probably stuck with. I don't even see how they'll manage to change it much in the CV overhaul since changing it will bring out the "bait and switch" accusations that aren't actually wrong.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[HE]
Members
520 posts
8,960 battles
1 minute ago, ramp4ge said:

 

How is it not fully WG's fault? They released it first, it was awful. They released it again, it's outrageously overpowered.

 

This is entirely WG's fault. Whether the current performance stems from the hope to redeem themselves to previous Graf Zep owners or a lack of testing and complete reliance on CC input, WG is still the last word in what makes it into the game and what doesn't.

 

And now we're stuck with an outrageously overpowered ship that they probably won't change, but will just never sell again. So those that are already in the game, we're probably stuck with. I don't even see how they'll manage to change it much in the CV overhaul since changing it will bring out the "bait and switch" accusations that aren't actually wrong.

So all of the player base is going to suffer and that 300+ people are just going to LOL?/;      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,485
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,702 posts
611 battles
1 minute ago, Plaatduutsch said:

So all of the player base is going to suffer and that 300+ people are just going to LOL?/;     

 

Basically. That's pretty much how it always is with premium ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[HE]
Members
520 posts
8,960 battles
4 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

How is it not fully WG's fault? They released it first, it was awful. They released it again, it's outrageously overpowered.

 

This is entirely WG's fault. Whether the current performance stems from the hope to redeem themselves to previous Graf Zep owners or a lack of testing and complete reliance on CC input, WG is still the last word in what makes it into the game and what doesn't.

 

And now we're stuck with an outrageously overpowered ship that they probably won't change, but will just never sell again. So those that are already in the game, we're probably stuck with. I don't even see how they'll manage to change it much in the CV overhaul since changing it will bring out the "bait and switch" accusations that aren't actually wrong.

WG should just take it back and refund them all.

300 sold is not a huge number

  • Cool 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[HE]
Members
520 posts
8,960 battles
1 minute ago, ramp4ge said:

 

Basically. That's pretty much how it always is with premium ships. 

That Huang Meh is also a garbage boat, why aren't we seeing the buff to that boat?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
171
[OBS]
Members
1,265 posts
9,802 battles

I will say that taking 50,000 damage in a Moskva from a single T8 GZ bomb strike is an interesting experience.

To add it's also about as interesting as taking close to the same damage from a single Lex AP strike.  Is it realistic?  Yeah but how much hard realism in the game do we have?  Not a lot.  That's what makes it an issue.

Edited by BullHalsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,485
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,702 posts
611 battles
Just now, Plaatduutsch said:

WG should just take it back and refund them all.

300 sold is not a huge number

 

1357-ha_zps17ae8e4b.png

 

You said WG and Refund in the same sentence.

 

 

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,005
[RLGN]
Members
10,112 posts
19,510 battles
5 minutes ago, Plaatduutsch said:

So all of the player base is going to suffer and that 300+ people are just going to LOL?/;      

What would be really funny would be if the CV rework screws things up so much, that GZ drivers just switch to secondary spec captains, and run the ship like a cruiser.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,485
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,702 posts
611 battles
1 minute ago, Plaatduutsch said:

That Huang Meh is also a garbage boat, why aren't we seeing the buff to that boat?

 

Because there isn't enormous outrage about it. You even had CCs getting 'fired' because of their vocalization about how bad the GZ was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,485
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,702 posts
611 battles
2 minutes ago, BullHalsey said:

I will say that taking 50,000 damage in a Moskva from a single T8 GZ bomb strike is an interesting experience.

 

Or as one player who got 1-shotted in a Des Moines so eloquently put it;

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,629 posts
17,078 battles
6 minutes ago, Plaatduutsch said:

That Huang Meh is also a garbage boat, why aren't we seeing the buff to that boat?

Apples and oranges, and definitely not garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,009
[WGA]
Administrator
878 posts
13,560 battles

Heyo Captains.

We do completely understand the concern many players have around the Graf Zeppelin, and also the desire many players have to get their hands on this ship.

Taken from Sub_Octavians recent QnA on Reddit:

In saying that, the Devs are aware with player grievences with the ship which they intend to address during the rework. Please be patient as we resolve this ship and give it the balance it, the game and the players always deserved.

On that note, I warn you to please be considerate of the forum rules considering being constructive in nature of your posts. This posting is walking the edge as it is.

Fem, 

  • Cool 3
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
171
[OBS]
Members
1,265 posts
9,802 battles
3 minutes ago, Femennenly said:

Heyo Captains.

We do completely understand the concern many players have around the Graf Zeppelin, and also the desire many players have to get their hands on this ship.

Taken from Sub_Octavians recent QnA on Reddit:

 

I like the caveat; it's the community's fault first but a good lesson to not listen and/or cave to the squeaky wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,640 posts
3,603 battles

Are we still complaining about a ship that really gets played? I seriously can't remember the last time I've seen one in battle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×