Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Ski206

POLL: Name for the new US Premium WV41 or Maryland?

WV41 or Maryland  

79 members have voted

  1. 1. What should the New T6 Premium Colorado class BB be called?

    • West Virgina 41
      16
    • USS Maryland.
      63

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

35
[TF-62]
Members
110 posts
5,559 battles

While like many I'm thrilled that WG has listened to its player base and agreed to create a future West Virginia in her 1944 post refit configuration I'm confused by their choice of name. Now maybe there is a good reason (cough cough @Radar_X) and if so I'd love to hear it. But based on chatter I'm seeing the community feels the better choice is to call the new T6 Premium the USS Maryland and just save the WV name for the future post refit ship.

What say you?

Edited by Ski206
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,995 posts
4,437 battles

i don't know,it's similar to the alabama ST and alabama. at least WG is aware we didn't like the ship pre refit but they did admit that giving her a refit would be a long process.

the good news?we MIGHT get her post refit,but not anytime soon,there  are other ships being made,the rumored VMF BB line,italian line,etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,463
[-K-]
Members
5,295 posts
9,114 battles

Call it Maryland and be done with it.

Otherwise, you're putting a storied name and expectations on a ship that doesn't live up to the hype.  I certainly don't like the precedent of modelling two different ships with the same name, as it smells too much like a marketing ploy and exploitation of a good name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
228
[AR15]
Members
450 posts
2,970 battles

We really dont want to open the can of worms that is ships with years in the name.   Unless you like seeing a bunch of versions of the same ship, I personally dont want to see that.  Just call it Maryland and be done with it, WV '41 will cause more issues than it would fix.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
428
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
1,683 posts
3,824 battles

It's cause the modeling for West Virginia 41' actually has slight differences to it than what the Maryland would be if it were to be 3d modeled as well, just like how the sister ship of the Iowa had slight difference to them during their construction. Not every sister ship are built exactly the same with each other.

 

WG wants to make their models as historically accurate as possible and therefore by using their researched on West Virginia 41' they modeled it as accurate as they can. Maryland isn't just some name of a ship, it's an identity only unique to the actual ship in all of its physical aspects and history and may very well has some differences in it than the West Virginia 41'

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,018
[ARGSY]
Members
6,354 posts
4,275 battles

They're walking it back slowly. Give it time.

@Vader_Sama has a point, though. Is the loss of fanatical levels of historical accuracy an acceptable one to pay for just renaming the existing ship model Maryland and calling it done? Discuss. Politely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[PNGYN]
Members
491 posts
3,049 battles
2 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

They're walking it back slowly. Give it time.

@Vader_Sama has a point, though. Is the loss of fanatical levels of historical accuracy an acceptable one to pay for just renaming the existing ship model Maryland and calling it done? Discuss. Politely.

To this I say: Meh.

The only time I really get a good look at the ships in game is when I am in port. And that doesn't happen very often.

Besides, once in the actual game, I don't look over my ships very often. I'm more concerned with where my reticle is, where my shell land, where I am sailing, and who is in the area.

As long as the basic shape of the ship is there, and it works properly (as intended TM) in game, I don't much care what the name is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
[RLGN]
Members
449 posts
4,369 battles

Definitely rather have the Maryland than having West Virginia '41 and West Virginia in the game as separate ships with those names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
428
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
1,683 posts
3,824 battles

West Virginia 41' as shown in the dev blog features a radar on its mast of which was the only battleship of that class to have one before the events of Pearl Harbor so therefore it is indeed unique to only West Virginia and not Maryland or any other of the Colorado class before their WWII refit. Also the Maryland had a torpedo bulge whereas the West Virginia did not around the same year.

The current 3d model is as accurate as it can be for the West Virginia as she was in 1941 and would be incorrect to slap the name Maryland upon her just cause it's convenient. WG took intensive care in the details of their ship models and will maintain that they are identified correctly hence why they must give the name "West Virginia 41".

 

West Virginia 41' and Maryland are physically different from one another and the only time they would be identical is when both were commissioned back in the early 1920s.

 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,964 posts

Doesn't take a genius to look at photos of Maryland and WV at Pearl Harbor to notice differences. As mentioned above, WV has a radar on her foremast which Maryland doesn't have.

1438377446931.jpg

Maryland has a rangefinder on B turret which WV doesn't have.

5d627e7da72e0a1d6d7a1311c732dc0c.jpg

WV41 is already modeled and ready for testing. Sending her back to the drawing board just to remove the radar, add the rangefinder and some other stuff will cost WG more time and money, delay testing of the ship, delay its scheduled release date and delay work on other ships still in development. This results in lost revenue for WG. Personally I don't mind the name West Virginia 41. I don't see it any differently from tanks that have model numbers, like T-34 Mod 1942 or PzKpfw IV Ausf G. There are two St Louis in the game yet nobody complained. If they're going to rename her Maryland then I expect her to look like Maryland. But as I already said, it will cost them time and money, so just let WG keep the name WV41 and get it out of the way so they can move on to developing other ships. On the bright side, this creates precedent for other ships like Iron Duke and Konig which are missing their historical 1916 Jutland hulls.

Just keep in mind what they said, "we can not promise that West Virginia of the late period will appear in the game in the near future."

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[BOOTY]
Beta Testers
377 posts
6,973 battles

I'm definitely biased but I say take what we got and run with it. Would rather have two WVs than a fake Maryland and a WV 44 two years from now.

Edited by USSWest_Virginia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[TF-62]
Members
110 posts
5,559 battles

I get that the model might not be 100%. But its certainly close enough especially if you strip the Radar off. And WG could as part of a future patch fix any remaining errors. Alternately release her as Maryland the offer a WV41 cammo or a Maryland cammo and let people choose which skin to mount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,178
[SIM]
Members
2,541 posts
4,184 battles

It wouldn’t be *that* difficult to make the superficial changes needed to convert the current West Virginia into the Maryland (source: I’ve done a bit of 3d model editing in my time) and it would save us from the snafu of having Ship Years mucking up the game. Also, it would be a good way to get the Maryland into the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,307
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,113 posts
8,680 battles
On 10/1/2018 at 11:26 AM, JToney3449 said:

Just call it Maryland and be done with it, WV '41 will cause more issues than it would fix.

Bingo:Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
326 posts
31 battles

Why is everyone trying to push that hot garbage into my state. I have spoken to the members of the politburo and The Peoples Republic Of Maryland does not want that trash....WV41 it is. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
326 posts
31 battles

What people don't realize is that West Virginia was created for the express purpose for having a place for Maryland to dump their trash!!!!!! hehehehehehe

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41
[SOSL]
Members
147 posts
6,421 battles
On 10/1/2018 at 11:46 AM, Vader_Sama said:

WG wants to make their models as historically accurate as possible and therefore by using their researched on West Virginia 41' they modeled it as accurate as they can. 

That's what they say, but in reality they are not so dedicated to accuracy. Arizona is modeled with 1.1" guns that were only empty tubs when she sunk. New Mexico's AA outfit is total fiction. The top hulls of Wyoming and Pensacola are actually their sister ships Arkansas and Salt Lake City, respectively.

Why get persnickety now and break naming protocol over what were surely quite minor differences? If it bothers the historians, put the re-modeling work as a low priority task and update the model a few patches from now. You'll still sell the ship and won't set a weird new naming standard.

Edited by Formerly_Wu
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
On 10/1/2018 at 12:46 PM, Vader_Sama said:

It's cause the modeling for West Virginia 41' actually has slight differences to it than what the Maryland would be if it were to be 3d modeled as well, just like how the sister ship of the Iowa had slight difference to them during their construction. Not every sister ship are built exactly the same with each other.

 

WG wants to make their models as historically accurate as possible and therefore by using their researched on West Virginia 41' they modeled it as accurate as they can. Maryland isn't just some name of a ship, it's an identity only unique to the actual ship in all of its physical aspects and history and may very well has some differences in it than the West Virginia 41'

Tell that to USS New York, which had an almost completely different bridge and conning tower to the Texas, but in-game, has an almost identical superstructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
11 hours ago, Wolcott said:

Doesn't take a genius to look at photos of Maryland and WV at Pearl Harbor to notice differences. As mentioned above, WV has a radar on her foremast which Maryland doesn't have.

1438377446931.jpg

Maryland has a rangefinder on B turret which WV doesn't have.

5d627e7da72e0a1d6d7a1311c732dc0c.jpg

WV41 is already modeled and ready for testing. Sending her back to the drawing board just to remove the radar, add the rangefinder and some other stuff will cost WG more time and money, delay testing of the ship, delay its scheduled release date and delay work on other ships still in development. This results in lost revenue for WG. Personally I don't mind the name West Virginia 41. I don't see it any differently from tanks that have model numbers, like T-34 Mod 1942 or PzKpfw IV Ausf G. There are two St Louis in the game yet nobody complained. If they're going to rename her Maryland then I expect her to look like Maryland. But as I already said, it will cost them time and money, so just let WG keep the name WV41 and get it out of the way so they can move on to developing other ships. On the bright side, this creates precedent for other ships like Iron Duke and Konig which are missing their historical 1916 Jutland hulls.

Just keep in mind what they said, "we can not promise that West Virginia of the late period will appear in the game in the near future."

Considering that WV's camouflage in the footage and images seen thus far is still inaccurate (in '41, she had a natural teak deck [which Arizona also had], along with dark gray vertical surfaces w/white fighting tops), they can spare the two or three man-hours it'd take to rearrange a couple of modules. If anyone hasn't noticed that WG builds their ships in a highly modular fashion by now, then they really haven't taken any time to understand anything about 3D modelling, have they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
851
[SBS]
Members
2,478 posts
2,253 battles

One thing that people don't seem to be taking into account are sales.  WG isn't going to be able to sell many Maryland's compared to WV 41's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
Just now, Slimeball91 said:

One thing that people don't seem to be taking into account are sales.  WG isn't going to be able to sell many Maryland's compared to WV 41's. 

Why is that?

I'm serious; what is the difference in the two names that is going to lead to a reduction in sales? People who were going to buy a Tier VI stock Colorado were already going to buy it no matter what name was hung on it. So renaming it Maryland, as opposed to a numerated West Virginia, isn't going to affect sales and will avoid the rather grim precedent of possibly having future numerated ship designs to try and milk more premium ship sales over time.

Imagine if WG decided to try and sell a "what-if" upgraded Arizona at Tier VII, calling it Arizona '44? The shipstorm that would erupt would practically eclipse all other salt tempests before it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
428
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
1,683 posts
3,824 battles
8 minutes ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

Tell that to USS New York, which had an almost completely different bridge and conning tower to the Texas, but in-game, has an almost identical superstructure.

There is a difference between USS New York and the New York class of which there is a rather large room of adjustments WG can do as it's not tied to a specific ship, but instead a whole class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
Just now, Vader_Sama said:

There is a difference between USS New York and the New York class of which there is a rather large room of adjustments WG can do as it's not tied to a specific ship, but instead a whole class.

Indeed, which is why I have always found it curious (and more than a little disappointing) that they then went and introduced Texas into the game and left the New York in as the copy-paste ship she had always been.

Developer laziness has killed better games than WoWS, and that's a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,125
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,429 posts
9,564 battles

Maryland would be preferable for me. I also am not concerned with the timing. WG can take all the time they need to adjust the model.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×