Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
_1204_

So this whole West Virginia thing

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

319
[SYJ]
[SYJ]
Members
918 posts
2,119 battles

Figured I'd do my part in the WV rage storm... maybe WG will listen a second time.

 

I think 2 West Virginia's is far worse than the original plan. It's not like tanks where there was multiple units produced throughout different years... there was only one West Virginia, and it should match in game. Not to be the guy ranting 'I spent money on the game, do what I say', but instead of listening to us, your kind of force feeding the product that we didnt want, and promising us we may see what we want later. IMO you would be far better off scrapping the idea of a tier 6 WV premium all together, and starting on making a post refit WV at tier 7, because there is no tier 7 American BBs yet.

 

I know it's a controversial topic... but as a ship collector, it's nice to have ONE ship! We as a community did not approve of the original West Virginia, so please work on it and dont force it upon us

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,695
Members
18,192 posts
5,196 battles
4 minutes ago, _1204_ said:

IMO you would be far better off scrapping the idea of a tier 6 WV premium all together, and starting on making a post refit WV at tier 7, because there is no tier 7 American BBs yet.

They'll probably make the WV44 a T8. What would they have to do to it to make it not OP at T7 compared to a Colorado?

At least at T8, it could get buffed instead.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
1,664 posts
3,815 battles

It's already too late, the ship model is made and preliminary stats are released. It would be a complete waste to just dump it away. A 1945 Wee Vee demands an entire new ship model be researched and made and that takes a long time from start to finish.

So might as well finish what they have now because it ain't gonna be any faster to trash the nearly finished product or release it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,307
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,113 posts
8,680 battles

Well I think the simple thing WG could do instead of a 41 Wee Vee, is call it USS Maryland (BB-46), sell us the Fighting Mary  for T6. And make the Wee Vee (44) later.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[-VT3-]
Members
1,625 posts
3,364 battles
20 minutes ago, Vader_Sama said:

It's already too late, the ship model is made and preliminary stats are released. It would be a complete waste to just dump it away. A 1945 Wee Vee demands an entire new ship model be researched and made and that takes a long time from start to finish.

So might as well finish what they have now because it ain't gonna be any faster to trash the nearly finished product or release it.

That ship model has been around since 2015.  It's an A-hull colorado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
156
[RTXN]
Beta Testers
615 posts
20 minutes ago, Chaos_EN2 said:

Well I think the simple thing WG could do instead of a 41 Wee Vee, is call it USS Maryland (BB-46), sell us the Fighting Mary  for T6. And make the Wee Vee (44) later.

This is the first thing I have heard that makes sense - not that I really gave a flying something or another before, but have been watching the comments.


image.png.99f14be54217d2166b883c955495c08b.png

Maryland (above) looks pretty close to the current version of WV.  Change the name and number on the hull and give it a new camo scheme.  Save the name West Virginia for later in its 44 version!

Would have liked to see Tennessee, but the work has already been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
1,664 posts
3,815 battles
Just now, DerKrampus said:

That ship model has been around since 2015.  It's an A-hull colorado.

Except it's not. As it is uniquely modeled off of West Virginia as she was right before Pearl Harbor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[SIDE]
Members
1,247 posts
8,868 battles
32 minutes ago, _1204_ said:

Figured I'd do my part in the WV rage storm... maybe WG will listen a second time.

 

I think 2 West Virginia's is far worse than the original plan. It's not like tanks where there was multiple units produced throughout different years... there was only one West Virginia, and it should match in game. Not to be the guy ranting 'I spent money on the game, do what I say', but instead of listening to us, your kind of force feeding the product that we didnt want, and promising us we may see what we want later. IMO you would be far better off scrapping the idea of a tier 6 WV premium all together, and starting on making a post refit WV at tier 7, because there is no tier 7 American BBs yet.

 

I know it's a controversial topic... but as a ship collector, it's nice to have ONE ship! We as a community did not approve of the original West Virginia, so please work on it and dont force it upon us

Nobody is forcing it on you. Vote with your wallet and don't buy it if you don't care for the ship. I get what you're saying, and WoT constantly puts out cookie cutter tanks, which is one reason I no longer play WoT(gold ammo being the other reason).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,785
Members
9,959 posts
39 minutes ago, _1204_ said:

Figured I'd do my part in the WV rage storm... maybe WG will listen a second time.

 

I think 2 West Virginia's is far worse than the original plan. It's not like tanks where there was multiple units produced throughout different years... there was only one West Virginia, and it should match in game. Not to be the guy ranting 'I spent money on the game, do what I say', but instead of listening to us, your kind of force feeding the product that we didnt want, and promising us we may see what we want later. IMO you would be far better off scrapping the idea of a tier 6 WV premium all together, and starting on making a post refit WV at tier 7, because there is no tier 7 American BBs yet.

 

I know it's a controversial topic... but as a ship collector, it's nice to have ONE ship! We as a community did not approve of the original West Virginia, so please work on it and dont force it upon us

Maybe you should have looked at the poll before posting....

Seems to show that even in the forums, most people could give a rat's rear about this entire story....:Smile_teethhappy:

If people want to complain about something, perhaps they should be complaining about pushing the same ship out over and over in different configurations, rather than actually model new ships....:Smile_amazed:

Edited by awiggin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
210 posts

WHO CARES!

It's a pixel ship. I thought the solution was more than fair. Most of us who play WG games care about history. But, there are certain things not worth dying on that hill for. Be thankful that WG listened at all, because most other developers wouldn't. What is even more amazing is they listened to what is a small percentage of their player base. NA isn't huge and I can bet other servers do not care one bit about what iteration the WV comes in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
280
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
1,236 posts
4,803 battles
1 hour ago, Chaos_EN2 said:

Well I think the simple thing WG could do instead of a 41 Wee Vee, is call it USS Maryland (BB-46), sell us the Fighting Mary  for T6. And make the Wee Vee (44) later.

Sensible.. logical.. neither of which fits WGs narrative! 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,645
[BIAS]
Members
3,138 posts
9,213 battles

So we have the Benson in the game twice, the Boise is in the game twice and I think there is a 3rd ship in the game twice, but can't remember. 

So I think your argument has already been tossed out the window by wg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,353
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,395 posts
3,875 battles
48 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

So we have the Benson in the game twice, the Boise is in the game twice and I think there is a 3rd ship in the game twice, but can't remember. 

So I think your argument has already been tossed out the window by wg

The second Benson is called Lo Yang.

The second Boise is called some South American name I can't remember.

The second Admiral Hipper is called Prinz Eugen.

The second Gneisenau is called Scharnhorst.

The second Bismarck is called Tirpitz.

The second Wyoming is called Arkansas.

The second Gnevny is called Gremyaschy.

The third Gnevny is called Anshan.

The second Takao is called Atago.

The second Kagero is called Harekaze.

The second Yamato is called Musashi.

 

Should I go on?

 

Sharing the same name between different configurations and therefore different premiums doesn't really work. The only examples are ARP Kongo and ARP Myoko, which were part of the collab and are at least visually distinct and have the ARP at the beginning. And are also, you know, not actually different gameplay-wise.

 

There's also the fact that WG is apparently planning on making people pay twice for the same name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,645
[BIAS]
Members
3,138 posts
9,213 battles
32 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

The second Benson is called Lo Yang.

The second Boise is called some South American name I can't remember.

The second Admiral Hipper is called Prinz Eugen.

The second Gneisenau is called Scharnhorst.

The second Bismarck is called Tirpitz.

The second Wyoming is called Arkansas.

The second Gnevny is called Gremyaschy.

The third Gnevny is called Anshan.

The second Takao is called Atago.

The second Kagero is called Harekaze.

The second Yamato is called Musashi.

 

Should I go on?

 

Sharing the same name between different configurations and therefore different premiums doesn't really work. The only examples are ARP Kongo and ARP Myoko, which were part of the collab and are at least visually distinct and have the ARP at the beginning. And are also, you know, not actually different gameplay-wise.

 

There's also the fact that WG is apparently planning on making people pay twice for the same name.

The Bismarck is not the Tirptiz, the Wyoming is not the Arkansas. 

The Lo Yang is the Benson and the Nueve de Julio is the Boise. BIG DIFFERENCE when the op is saying he doesn't want the West Virginia in former and later configurations because it was only one ship. The ship known as both Benson and Lo Yang is the game twice as is the ship known by Boise and Nueve de Julio. 

So invalid argument is invalid. 

 

Also, I believe that the harekaze is a fictional ship

 

Edited by Ducky_shot
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25
[TASC]
Members
143 posts
5,811 battles

and now for something completely different,  do a big patch / change in the names and list the ships in the tech tree by class. then sell premium ships by name with perks from their history. so a Scharnhorst class with scharn and Gneis as premiums.  for this topic a colorado class in the tech tree and sell the WV and Washington and Maryland. just a thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
394
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Members
1,138 posts
6,772 battles

Make WV44 a T7 brawler, just like MA is at T8. Nerf the characteristics of the main battery a little to compensate. 

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.

×