Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
tm63au

So I Woke Up This Morning To Another Controversy

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

514
[POP]
Members
1,162 posts
15,028 battles

hi

So got up this morning jumped on the computer got a few games in and then decided to head over to the forum to see what is up, and low and behold I find that word from up high about this whole West Virginia scandal had arrived, but we will get to that later.

Lets talk about the old girl first and WG idea to create her in this model, the way I see it The Pre Pearl Harbour version is not the problem here to its those crazy kids at Lesta, why on earth they came to the conclusion to design the 41 version is beyond me, maybe they thought because Arizona went so well they could repeat it or maybe they use you some sought of lucky dip draw system where by they pick a name and year model out of hat, who knows with those kids.

Anyway things are getting heated and people are getting inflamed and passionate and a lot name calling has been directed at poor old Wee Vee 41and its not really her fault so I think we should just relax leave her to rest in peace and focus our energies on convincing the powers that be to not go through with this design constructively.

Now lets have look at this statement from the DEV blog

    

20638810_1914083618917976_49376463328939

Dear players.

After the announcement of the tier VI American battleship West Virginia, we noticed that many of you would like to see this ship in a later configuration. Thank you for your feedback. We would like to inform you that the battleship, which we plan to add to the game now, will be renamed and called West Virginia ’41, and in the future we plan to create a West Virginia from a later period.

WELL AT LEAST THEY ACKNOWLEGDED THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY BUT THERE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY, WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED, BUT YOU WILL GET ANOTHER CHANCE WITH A LATE WAR MODEL MAYBE, YEAH RIGHT I WAIT WITH BAITED BREATH FOR THE SECOND COMING.  

We would also like to note that the creation of a new configuration of the ship is a long process, which is largely similar to the creation of a ship from scratch. To reliably recreate the state of the ship for a certain year, we need to collect a lot of materials and evidence, work on the model, and carry it through all stages of testing. Therefore, we can not promise that West Virginia of the late period will appear in the game in the near future and ask for your patience and understanding as we work to deliver a ship that fits your expectations according to your valued feedback.

THIS SECOND PARAGRAPH IS A GEM, THEY TELL US SHIPS TAKE A WHILE TO MAKE " WELL GUYS MAYBE YOU HAVE STARTED WITH THE LATE YEAR SHIP IN THE FIRST PLACE " THEN THEY NEED INFO TO MAKE THE LATE WAR SHIP,  GEE HATE SEE WHAT THERE LIBRARY LOOKS LIKE THEN, OK HERE IS A FRIENDLY TIP ON HOW TO GET INFORMATION ON SHIPS " GOOGLE IT ".

NOW HERE IS THE KICKER WITH THE SECOND PARAGRAGH " BUT YOU MIGHT NOT GET THE SHIP YOU WANT ANYWAY BUT WE WILL MAKE THE 1941 SHIP YOU HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR, THE LIGHTS ARE ON BUT NOBODY'S HOME "   :Smile_facepalm:

This whole statement is a total contradiction, did I miss something is there a election in Russia, are these guys running for Parliament, because this exactly sounds like what a politician would say to voters.

Really WG your in house SPIN DOCTORS are bad, you guys really need to use a outside PR firm when it comes to these controversial decisions you make, this statement sounds like a really badly worded failed attempt at damage control with the hope that people will simply buy this nonsense and it will quietly disappear, sorry WG its not going to happen, your digging yourself into a bigger hole.

So its my understanding that a premium ship designed by WG are suppose to be in theory designed to there final model, however I'm certain someone will provide the correct information on premium ships, anyway based on that premise they still decided to design a Mutsu that did not have its1943 configuration and despite protest from the community they still went and did it, you barely see a Mutsu sailing in game, and when you see someone in one its like a " BREAK GLASS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY"  situation.  

Tirpitz this ship is one of my all time favourite ships it was the first premium I ever bought but its not a premium ship in its final configuration, its the 1942 model not the 1944 one, @dseehafer who was a bigger fan than I tried to bring this to the attention of WG many times in the last couple of years, we know it WG knows it but we will never get a 1944 model.

Now they are doing it again with this ship and they seem determined to push ahead no matter what, now its there company and they can do what they like however its a business and business needs money to continue so you can either buy the ship in the 1941 model and send a message to them that they can keep getting away with this and design the ships you DONT want or do what others have suggested show them that your not happy by keeping your wallet closed.

 Again I say 1941 West Virginia is not the problem its the people who refuse to listen to there customer base.

regards

     

 

         

 

 

    

    

Edited by tm63au
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[BOOTY]
Beta Testers
377 posts
6,967 battles

I have no problem with buying the 41 hull at tier six and I think it will do well there. They better give me my 44 hull though. I took the whole "may not appear in the near future" thing to mean its probably going to be a year or two before we see it.

I'm probably more than a little biased in the whole WV 41 v. Maryland debate, but I would really rather them go ahead and call it WV 41 since that's what they've modeled it after. Its not a huge difference but sailing around in a fake Maryland would just bother me. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
718
[HYDRO]
Members
1,556 posts
3,751 battles

But doesn't WG responding on the issue show that they will listen to their customer base if enough people complain?

Personally I have no issues with WG serving up the content they want to serve, the sales of their premium ships will be a far better judge than I. What I have an issue with, is how stock hulls were removed to improve player experience (a good move to be honest), and then appear as premiums with a few changes here and there. It was done with the Nagato A Hull (Mutsu), it was done with Amagi A Hull (Ashitaka), and it's gonna happen again.

And I don't even mind this that much, but rather that there are loads of new and interesting ships to design and sell that could be more profitable on the long run.

 

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
482
[FML]
Members
1,751 posts
10,116 battles
5 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

But doesn't WG responding on the issue show that they will listen to their customer base if enough people complain?

Personally I have no issues with WG serving up the content they want to serve, the sales of their premium ships will be a far better judge than I. What I have an issue with, is how stock hulls were removed to improve player experience (a good move to be honest), and then appear as premiums with a few changes here and there. It was done with the Nagato A Hull (Mutsu), it was done with Amagi A Hull (Ashitaka), and it's gonna happen again.

And I don't even mind this that much, but rather that there are loads of new and interesting ships to design and sell that could be more profitable on the long run.

 

I dont have a problem with WG downtiering a stock hull in the form of a premium ship - it'll still earn more credit, provide captain training, and see different MM than its tech tree counterpart.  And, because the base ship is largely already modelled, it would take less time and effort for them to bring out relatively more premium ships - which is a good thing to keep the game healthy. 

 

I still think the obvious solution is to make a T6 stock Colorado hull and call her Maryland (based off their work already done), and in 6 months or so bring in a T8 West Virgina.  The T8 WV will still be a challenge, at 20 kts or so, in an environment facing Iowas and Alsaces.  But it would definitely be something different - and that is what premium ships should be.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,971
[ARGSY]
Members
6,258 posts
4,224 battles
4 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

What I have an issue with, is how stock hulls were removed to improve player experience (a good move to be honest)

Yeah, I don't mind an A and a B hull, and maybe a C hull as a sidegrade like the US destroyers, Nurnburg, etc., but having to grind your way through TWO hull upgrades before you can even start the grind to the next ship is a little bit much.

(It's probably acceptable in the case of the Furutaka because the C hull of that ship is a complete rebuild, with a new turret layout that changes a lot about the way you fight her. It would be a bit like offering the Warspite layout as a Queen Elizabeth A and B hull, then the in-game QE as the C.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[SBD]
[SBD]
Members
254 posts
3,467 battles

Why anyone cares about another pathetically slow USN BB, with glacial turret rotation, and days long reload speed is beyond me.

If your really into self torture just play the New Mexico.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 4
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,227
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,405 posts
9,562 battles

So I played the Colorado in Co-Op a few games last night. Came to the conclusion it is WAY TOO SLOW at 21 knots. It also bleeds down to 15 knots in a turn - which you will be doing a lot of in this slow bucket. I equate this to having one of those nightmares where there is a train coming, and your legs won't move. However, an easy fix for T8 West Virginia would be a one-time speed boost to 27 knots at spawn. This way, you can stay together with your team - instead of being the sad-sack way back there in the rear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,827
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,282 posts

I think what you are suggesting is probably not correct... why wouldn't they take an existing model, change some things and release it as another model. I doubt the ship was (in RL) rebuilt from the hull up, so why not use most of the ship, change what's different and sell her? I would suggest you'll see her only when the "new ship to be added to the game" is getting short. 

Lots of other ships will come first. But it is highly unlikely they'll toss away an opportunity for RL coins. OTOH, what better way to not deliver than suggest you will deliver but place it at an unknown date and time. 

Eventually it will become a non-issue if too much time goes by... watch for the WV Staying Alive perma thread next. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
718
[HYDRO]
Members
1,556 posts
3,751 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Yeah, I don't mind an A and a B hull, and maybe a C hull as a sidegrade like the US destroyers, Nurnburg, etc., but having to grind your way through TWO hull upgrades before you can even start the grind to the next ship is a little bit much.

(It's probably acceptable in the case of the Furutaka because the C hull of that ship is a complete rebuild, with a new turret layout that changes a lot about the way you fight her. It would be a bit like offering the Warspite layout as a Queen Elizabeth A and B hull, then the in-game QE as the C.)

Having had to grind  the Fuso A hull I know how bad the stock experience was. What I meant was how the stock hulls were removed only to return as premium ships a tier lower. It just seems lazy, only to introduce one more premium ship to the game. I don't feel quantity has a quality of its own in WoWs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,149
[SCTFB]
[SCTFB]
Beta Testers
3,972 posts
15,589 battles

this is like the 20th thread so many tears have been shed over this you can float the real WV on them alone

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,971
[ARGSY]
Members
6,258 posts
4,224 battles
5 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

What I meant was how the stock hulls were removed only to return as premium ships a tier lower. It just seems lazy,

Oh, I know. But sometimes it brings something new (occasionally terrifying) to the game at the tier the downgraded premiums see, and sometimes the owners of those premiums receive a delightful surprise, as the Ashitaka drivers did when their guns were buffed to something more resembling the full Amagi standard.

Yes, it's lazy... but some people are willing to pay to have a whole class of ships (the Amagi-class BC's as projected) in their ports, and you can't blame WG for making business decisions which cater to that desire. Without the business and the profits, we wouldn't have the game. And I would remind you that those downgraded premiums sometimes fall into more favourable matchmaking brackets (e.g. Ashitaka no longer suffers the depredations of Tier VIII M/M but deals with the much more favourable Tier VII algorithm), so sometimes there is a net gain for the players that is not immediately apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
762 posts
15,808 battles

If you don't want '41, then

Don't Buy It

If enough premium ships that aren't wanted don't sell, then maybe they'll start polling in their official forums for what ships ARE wanted.

You keep buying and crying, then all WG cares about is the former! Figure it out.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,695
Members
18,198 posts
5,196 battles
1 hour ago, tm63au said:

its those crazy kids at Lesta, why on earth they came to the conclusion to design the 41 version is beyond me... 

Umm..... maybe because they wanted a T6 premium, and not a T7 or T8?

And why would they want to make a T8? So many people here say that T8 premiums don't get used because of how often they see T10s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
514
[POP]
Members
1,162 posts
15,028 battles
19 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Umm..... maybe because they wanted a T6 premium, and not a T7 or T8?

And why would they want to make a T8? So many people here say that T8 premiums don't get used because of how often they see T10s.

Yes its good point but lets face it a tier 6 BB is still going to face fast BBs from 8 as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
514
[POP]
Members
1,162 posts
15,028 battles
23 minutes ago, theLaalaa said:

If you don't want '41, then

Don't Buy It

If enough premium ships that aren't wanted don't sell, then maybe they'll start polling in their official forums for what ships ARE wanted.

You keep buying and crying, then all WG cares about is the former! Figure it out.

Quite correct I wont be buying it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
375
[INTEL]
Members
793 posts
8,257 battles
1 hour ago, warheart1992 said:

But doesn't WG responding on the issue show that they will listen to their customer base if enough people complain?

 No. Their response shows that they "heard" the outcry but refuse to "listen" to it.

 I dont remember ever seeing a call for a 1941 version of WV. I recall several calls for a 44 version over the last year. Since the announcement of WV41 the response has been overwhelmingly negative. WG's response translates to, "We dont care what you think or what you want."

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,464
[AXANR]
Members
3,363 posts
16,648 battles
3 minutes ago, Ares1967 said:

 No. Their response shows that they "heard" the outcry but refuse to "listen" to it.

 I dont remember ever seeing a call for a 1941 version of WV. I recall several calls for a 44 version over the last year. Since the announcement of WV41 the response has been overwhelmingly negative. WG's response translates to, "We dont care what you think or what you want."

Confirmation bias for the win! So your response is "I never heard it so therefore WG personally hates me"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,091 posts
3,067 battles

This whole "WV controversy" thing is hilariously stupid. WG added her in her '41 loadout because that way she was unique and not just a Colorado clone premium at T7, that would just have better soft stats. But for whatever fanboys threw a hissy fit in the most infantile display demanding for no reason they add her '44 format. So now WG has waste time on a ship we essentially already have in game as a tech tree ship. 

Imagine if every other nationality erupted in indignation any time a ship from their country wasn't modeled in it's latest possible format. This whole "controversy" is beyond idiotic.

Edited by goldeagle1123
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,091 posts
3,067 battles
8 minutes ago, Ares1967 said:

 No. Their response shows that they "heard" the outcry but refuse to "listen" to it.

 I dont remember ever seeing a call for a 1941 version of WV. I recall several calls for a 44 version over the last year. Since the announcement of WV41 the response has been overwhelmingly negative. WG's response translates to, "We dont care what you think or what you want."

They don't have some obligation to add any ship the community wants to the game. Imagine if they added only ships the community asked for. We'd have 30 American premiums that are just clones of each other. We'd have every individual South Dakota, Iowa, North Carolina, and Colorado-class in the game because it's just a bunch of fanboys pining for ships that have hard-ons for to be added. If you want WV, go play Colorado. They're functionally the same ship in WoWS. WV is getting added in her '41 format because that way she unique, and offers something new. Ideally something every ship should be bringing to the game. 

WG should be adding ships that keep the game new and interesting, not whatever a bunch of internet manbabies decide to get offended over and cry about, for the dumbest reasons imaginable.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
514
[POP]
Members
1,162 posts
15,028 battles
1 minute ago, RipNuN2 said:

Lay off the caps it makes your argument seem desperately weak. :cap_popcorn:

sorry wanted everyone to know which was my writing and there statement, just trying to be creative as well 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
196
[90THD]
[90THD]
Members
2,751 posts
2,067 battles
29 minutes ago, goldeagle1123 said:

This whole "WV controversy" thing is hilariously stupid. WG added her in her '41 loadout because that way she was unique and not just a Colorado clone premium a T7, that would just have better soft stats. But for whatever fanboys threw a hissy fit in the most infantile display demanding for no reason they add her '44 format. So now WG has waste time on a ship we essentially already have in game as a tech tree ship. 

Imagine if every other nationality erupted in indignation any time a ship from their country wasn't modeled in it's latest possible format. This whole "controversy" is beyond idiotic.

Colorado-buffed_b2article_artwork.jpg

USS Colorado in-game

TR05772-2.jpg

USS West Virginia ('44 version) model box cover art.

 

Yeah sure 1941 WV is "unique". The only thing that stood out when we first saw her stats was her concealment. That's it. Everything was basically A-Hull of Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,296 posts
4,440 battles

Personally I think they should just stop making models of US warships.   Every time there is a new one announced then someone has a hissy fit and the pitchforks come out and the NA forum erupts into whining and people who know how to run a company better than those doing it and constatntly making new posts about the same damn thing because.. my post is better than the previous ones.

Lets go concentrate on all the other nations and that way perhaps some other navies will get some love and ships..  I mean seriously, why do we need YET ANOTHER American BB in ANY configuration, they all sink just as easily as all the others?

<waving..  have fun all>

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[H_]
Members
786 posts

I don't own US Battleships so I don't have a dog in this fight....

Being new, it would make sense if WG added the "A, B, C, etc..." to their base models and allow players to configure those variants to their play styles....  And, it would boost sales a bit if they really took the time to correctly match capabilities to those choices.  Too often I see "little value" in the options....  Some value, but nothing that shows that after a few years of product development, a ship can become far more effective.   The real issue is that this is an arcade game and not a SIM.

As you all have reminded me a thousand times in the 8 months I've been here.  As an arcade format, it has to be "exciting" and realism gets shelved for "oooh" and "aaaaaaaH!"  A ship with a 21 knot speed isn't either and if it isn't, then there has to be some other reason to drive a 21 knot ship in an Arcade format..........   That is the trap for Arcade FPS's: can you make something boring, fun and exciting?

A good example I know of is the shotgun variants in Fallout 4.  Shotguns are as boring as it gets folks.........So, they changed the ammunition's, which are hard to get,  to Incendiary, plasma, and others that make using a simple weapon not only exciting, but, extremely powerful.......in fact, you only need that and one other weapon to "win the story lines......"

WG just hasn't "gotten that concept" yet....  They should use that same paradigm for ships that were created in the dreadnought and saw service up to Korea !!!  That's over three decades of improvements and changes!!!  I just can't see why WG is this far behind in these concepts....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[POP]
Members
596 posts
11,962 battles

    I honestly have no issue with WG releasing the '41 and another year at a later date. The '41 will be strong with those guns at the lower tier. The fact they listened and said they would release a later hull model at a date TBD says a lot in my opinion. They could just tell you to git gud. Before the 'they run off our money' thing gets thrown around at what I am saying … realize there needs to be a little give and take from both ends and be happy the company is listening. I am not saying it couldn't be better, what I am saying is that it is not the worst, by far.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×