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

Do you want years in ship names in the future?

Do you like the idea of putting years in ship titles?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. Yes or no

    • Yes
      13
    • No
      38
  2. 2. Bacon

    • Yes
      19
    • Crispy
      26
    • Charred
      6

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,154 posts
3,146 battles

Quick poll to see if people even want years in ship names. Personally I don't so I can tell what ship it is at a glance. Not talking about the West Virginia, just any ship in general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[TDRB]
Members
1,132 posts
4,280 battles

I like crispy bacon. Fried egg, bacon & grape jelly on toast or biscuit makes a great breakfast sandwich.

Don't care about the year one way or the other on the ship's name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,482 posts
2,336 battles

Being used to all the tanks with their numbers, i'm pretty neutral on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,154 posts
3,146 battles
9 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

I like crispy bacon. Fried egg, bacon & grape jelly on toast or biscuit makes a great breakfast sandwich.

Don't care about the year one way or the other on the ship's name.

This is always why I make sure to make a "bacon" question in my polls, I really don't want people to be left with just one option for bacon. Also, if I don't include bacon people riot. 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,332 posts
3,591 battles

If it is used in a way that makes sense and it is not a clone of an already existing ship except when it comes to a completely different playstyle ie Mass and Alabama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
578 posts
3,702 battles

Finally, a poll with a meaningful question.

I prefer my bacon crispy, of course.

Oh, that other thing....

No numbers please.

CS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
275
[HCH]
[HCH]
Beta Testers
878 posts
7,275 battles

I would actually like this idea, and if possible, have the year change whenever the ship's hull is upgraded. This would reflect rebuilds and such.

As an aside, I really do miss the time when the ships would have their old/original models, and then the models would change to what they looked like after a modernization/refit. Gave a sense of real progress, such as when I upgraded the stock hulls of the IJN BBs way back.

Share this post


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

The hull upgrades used to be dated. Then they went with A/B/C saying "Oh that was accidental we'll fix it in the next patch" and guess what they didn't do?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
354 posts
5 battles

Actually we used to have ship names in the hull types, they were removed and replaced with A/B/C mostly because of people (rightfully) pointing out that things such as colorado 1943 wasn't actually the 43 refit of her and other such stupidity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
144
[WLDD]
Beta Testers
353 posts
5,209 battles
1 hour ago, TheNargacuga said:

Actually we used to have ship names in the hull types, they were removed and replaced with A/B/C mostly because of people (rightfully) pointing out that things such as colorado 1943 wasn't actually the 43 refit of her and other such stupidity. 

This.  The tech tree ships are just the generic class of the ships, while premiums are representative of the actual named ship.  The dated hulls that we used to have were comprised of different refits and planned configurations that the different ships in that class had.  Wargaming changed them to the A/B/C naming we have now to stop the questions about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
161 posts
3,015 battles

I voted no, just because it will get confusing over time.  It's not something I'm going to stress about one way or the other.

Now for the bacon, make mine crispy please, and the hash browns, eggs and toast with grape jelly!  I'm hungry this morning.

Share this post


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

As I've said in another thread, having different ships with the same name but different years can (and will) open up a whole can of nasty-[edited]worms further down the line. The example I used then is just as valid as now, and it's only been a few days: Imagine, if you will, Wargaming deciding at some point further down the line, to sell a "what-if" rebuild of USS Arizona, but they called it "Arizona '44" and slapped enough improved AA and fire directors to make it a Tier VII premium.

The forums and Reddit would run red with blood...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
[O_O]
Members
792 posts
4,789 battles

Not a tremendous fan of the idea.  Would much prefer to see sisters used to represent the different year modification premiums (eg; North Carolina in her fully updated 1945 version and Washington in her 1941 state or Iowa in her fully updated 1945 state and Kentucky in a speculative 1950s construction state as a future Steel X.)

-R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
Members
725 posts

another useless poll, as the Bacon options excludes vegetarians, vegans or some religious groups from voting, ergo is discriminating in preventing said groups from voting in the more important yes/no for putting years in ship titles. :Smile_hiding:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[WOLF2]
Members
898 posts
7,308 battles
2 hours ago, b101uk said:

another useless poll, as the Bacon options excludes vegetarians, vegans or some religious groups from voting, ergo is discriminating in preventing said groups from voting in the more important yes/no for putting years in ship titles. :Smile_hiding:

They can have their potatoes.   Plenty of those in the game.   Enjoy, Vegans!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[ENDVR]
Members
431 posts
5,346 battles

Lacking in “slightly undercooked, soft, fatty bacon”

... kinda like WV’41?

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.

×