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

Yikes! Another West Virginia thread

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

311
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,058 posts
3,926 battles

So...I hate to possibly put the horse before the cart (as is the case with the WV in development) but I was bored and wanted to chime in. My main objective is a poll...created by someone more talented and with a little more time than I have at the moment. While WG *apparently* listens less to the playerbase than they used to (no confirmation), perhaps a graphical representation might catch their eye. I was thinking something along the lines of two questions: 1) how many would have any interest in buying a 1930s, pre-Pearl Harbor West Virginia?

2) How many would purchase a post Pearl Harbor, refitted West Virginia?

More than likely it would accomplish very little; on the flip side, you miss every shot you don't take. Another angle might be to post non-trollish posts and flag Pigeon or Sub-Octavian and argue a well presented case. Said case might be strengthened by CC support.

I for one, with the investment I have made in game am all about the longevity of the game. Not that a single premium ship is gonna make or break the bank, but I see a potential loss of revenue and wasted man hours (even if its just balancing and re-skinning Colorado A hull and recycling it). Sadly, whatever form she materializes in in-game, i will likely have to buy her...it is the West Virginia, and imnsho this is where the surrender ceremony should have taken place.

Just an idea and maybe not a very good one...it is what it is.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
6 minutes ago, BBsquid said:

2) How many would purchase a post Pearl Harbor, refitted West Virginia?

 

I'd rather it just be added to the tech tree as the top hull for the current tier 7 Colorado. 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
311
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,058 posts
3,926 battles
10 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

I'd rather it just be added to the tech tree as the top hull for the current tier 7 Colorado. 

That would be an option, too.

My concern is that, while WeeVee has been desired by the teeming, unwashed masses forever, there is a lot of salt in reaction to the dev blog. Rather than rage, maybe we can sell the 1944 WeeVee to WG through calm, rational discourse. 

Then again, maybe it doesnt matter what we do or say. Worth a crack though.

Edited by BBsquid
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles

The only time Wargaming ever actually listens to the playerbase is if the playerbase raises such a stink that games journo outlets pick up on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
875
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,448 posts
8,096 battles
7 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

I'd rather it just be added to the tech tree as the top hull for the current tier 7 Colorado. 

This, part of my whole thing of upgrading AA tiers 5-7 was Colorado getting a new hull to the standard of Maryland or West Virginia. 

 

There's a 4th sister that was never completed fully, USS Washington, they could use the name for, unless they actually want to put NC's sister in for whatever reason. Also falls under whey I think Wargaming needs to adopt  a system to differentiate ships beyond "pick another ship in class" - like calling the Lexington class Battle Cruisers, if in a line, Saratoga. Which, given the fact Lexington is actually Saratoga would rather see it called such. Go back to hull years and have ships with duplicate names have (year) next to them. Or the hull/plan designation (As in there was another FDG at I think Jutland or a sister of it, which would have whatever designation, where as the tier 9 has FDG (H-44), or USS Washington (BB-47) and USS Washington (BB-58)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
Members
1,590 posts
4,356 battles

When you throw down with “no matter what WG does, I’ll still buy it,” you weaken any argument you might make beyond measure. Personally, the chances of me buying a 21 kt “dread-not” are zero...again, not matter what WG does.  I cannot imagine circumstances under which I would even consider buying this ship. At Tier VI, for instance, why wouldn’t I simply buy an Arizona? If I’m not a USN fanboy, I’ve already got Mutsu, Bayern and Warspite packing big guns at Tier VI as well.  To me, that says pretty clearly that this ship is coming precisely for those people that will buy it no matter what.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
5,335 posts
3,946 battles
2 hours ago, ramp4ge said:

The only time Wargaming ever actually listens to the playerbase is if the playerbase raises such a stink that games journo outlets pick up on it.

Well.  They did allow Julio and Boise to be both sold at the same time.  They also allowed Alabama to be given to regular folk.

The devs here actually listen pretty well, more than other games and even other WG titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
181
[DRB]
[DRB]
Beta Testers
849 posts
4,798 battles

How about asking for a US second BB line that has strong secondaries? The Massachusetts is great fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,981
[ARGSY]
Members
6,274 posts
4,243 battles

If they can give the premium DD Monaghan an ahistorical B hull with weird quirks, you can always push them to develop a post-refit B hull for the WV. Start with what you KNOW they are going to give you no matter what, and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[_AFW_]
[_AFW_]
Members
6 posts
7,500 battles

From a balance perspective, I think it might be a better idea if they gave West Virginia's final form to Colorado. The AA would fit surprisingly well between New Mexico and North Carolina, and Tennessee could be introduced later on as a tier 7 without completely overshadowing her.

As far as the developers go, something to bear in mind is that this game was not developed by the same people who did World of Tanks. The WoWS division actually started as a separate software developer that Wargaming bought, and then commissioned to make this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,918 posts
1,365 battles

The only hope of me buying WV would be a t7, ungimped, secondary centric, well armored brawler.

No t6 prewar junker, no overtiered t8 joke.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×