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

Wargaming, just stop with WV for now.

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

335
[BNKR]
Members
709 posts
713 battles

West Virginia '41? Come on. It's okay to just stop development of the ship and not release it til you can do it correctly. I understand that you have the assets modeled already for the pre-war version, but nobody wants that. Just slow your roll on the ship and release the 1944 refit when it's ready. We waited for eons for Massachusetts and T-61, and folks are happy with the results. Forcing a junk ship down our throats to make a quick buck is not the way to do this. Please, just pull it out if the development cycle and get the thing right.

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[SWANS]
Beta Testers
140 posts
6,686 battles

Just name it Maryland And I buy it.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
76 posts

I've always wanted one of the prewar hulls, so much sleeker that the fat upgraded versions.  I'll be shelling out for it.  I agree with others though and suggest renaming it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
319
[SYJ]
[SYJ]
Members
918 posts
2,119 battles

Putting the year after a ship is a silly idea. Now we can have 5 different ships, but they're the same ship,  with like 5 more aa mounts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,432
[-K-]
Members
5,235 posts
9,096 battles

No reason they can't put it on the shelf for awhile until they figure something out.  They did the same thing with T-61 and Massachusetts and those turned out to be alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
9 minutes ago, _1204_ said:

Putting the year after a ship is a silly idea. Now we can have 5 different ships, but they're the same ship,  with like 5 more aa mounts

It does seem to set an...odd...precedent, so yeah, I can agree with you (and others with similar opinions) here. The fact that they're listening and are now willing to do the late-war refit the community has so long desired speaks volumes, and I am glad for it.

That said, I also agree that the Tier VI version should perhaps just be named Maryland. It's what a lot of folks have been suggesting from the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,508
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,090 posts
12,646 battles

Are WV'41 and Maryland really so identical that they wouldn't have to move texture artists or modelers back onto the project? WG (and a lot of players) seem very sensitive to such details, so I wonder whether the swap would be as simple as that.

Regardless, you can sort of tell how much slack WG has in their premium ship pipeline by looking at the devblog and counting the T8-and-below ships they have announced. If you can't name more than one or two, chances are they need this ship to fill a sales slot -- people complained quite a bit the last time there was a multi-month break in new ships, and I'd bet the actual loss in revenue was even more of an issue internally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×