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

WOWS vs WW II

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

346
[BROOK]
Members
1,634 posts

Back in WW II navies chased one another across millions of sq miles of ocean in pursuit of the final battle. CVs played a significant role in searching for and finding the enemy.

In WOWS we get tiny 40km square maps loaded with not only surface ships but up to 4 CVs and 400 planes.  Every plane that get's airborne is guaranteed to spot something within a minute of launch.

Now we try to pack even more CVs into the new game and act flabbergasted when the user base hates the results.

This game would need more than one CV per team if it offered 250 sq.km maps and 3-hour time limits rather than 20 minutes.

As someone who has spent over $1500 to support the game since 2016, my wallet is locked for the time being.  When you make my fave category of ships useless, DDs, by trying to appease a crowd obsessed with CVs, I'm no longer happy.

:Smile_sad:

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,738
[TARK]
Members
3,604 posts
1,528 battles
3 minutes ago, TheGreatBlasto said:

Back in WW II navies chased one another across millions of sq miles of ocean in pursuit of the final battle. CVs played a significant role in searching for and finding the enemy.

In WOWS we get tiny 40km square maps loaded with not only surface ships but up to 4 CVs and 400 planes.  Every plane that get's airborne is guaranteed to spot something within a minute of launch.

Now we try to pack even more CVs into the new game and act flabbergasted when the user base hates the results.

This game would need more than one CV per team if it offered 250 sq.km maps and 3-hour time limits rather than 20 minutes.

As someone who has spent over $1500 to support the game since 2016, my wallet is locked for the time being.  When you make my fave category of ships useless, DDs, by trying to appease a crowd obsessed with CVs, I'm no longer happy.

:Smile_sad:

 

 

 

 

The game developers want us to play the game in a 1925ish combat meta...

...with ships designed for wildly different era naval combat meta contexts...

It boggles the mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,149 posts
9,276 battles

Yeah well server limits etc re map sizes. They do a pretty good job melding all the real lifetm variables into a battle matrix that  is challenging to say the least for us perpetual 50%-ers. I keep coming back to it. I love ships too much.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,055
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
7,833 posts
18,449 battles

@TheGreatBlasto Amen to that! My wallet is closed and all my CVs scrapped. Just as you describe for CVs to be properly used in such a game the maps need to be huge and the time/distance scaling done away with. Battles should be in real time 4, 6, 8 to 12 hours not 20 minutes! If you cant handle that then get an IV line and a urinal or catheter or have buddies over to spell you for potty breaks! Of course do away with this silly 1 squad at a time bunk.  Make it so 1 player controls the ship and 3 others control the air groups.

Or just scrap CVs altogether since this system is baloney and the previous worked well for a square peg crammed into a round hole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,152
Members
24,025 posts
6,038 battles
31 minutes ago, TheGreatBlasto said:

This game would need more than one CV per team if....

For all we know, that might be all we end up getting in games, once the dust settles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,350
[H_]
Members
2,688 posts
12,340 battles

I'm not sure this is about appeasement....  this is about changing the Battle space to be an arcade FPS FFA....    No roles.  No historical realism.  Nothing that involves tactical thought.  Simplistic: see it and shoot everything as fast as you can.  To shorten TTK and overall game length producing the same throughput as WoTs so that the revenue steams match....

WoWs is under performing it seems so...........our host is changing out WW2 roles for gimmicks that are meta....  The "Golden Bullet" is coming for ships that can mount the re-load booster.....    I can't play at the moment because 8.0 is incompatible with my computer and the IT Gods on Monday will bench and audit an install to figure out why it son't load.  I'm not alone either.  Several have the same issues.....???  The previous version worked and WoWs CS isn't answering their mail it seems....

The game is being de evolved into an Arcade FFA......  Short games and all shooting........  Not for me though so I'm not rushing to get my PC fixed...  My clan mates, last I talked to them are still trying to figure out what in the heck the point of 8.0 really is......so, they can adapt top it?!>?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
473
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
1,770 posts
3,961 battles
44 minutes ago, TheGreatBlasto said:

Back in WW II navies chased one another across millions of sq miles of ocean in pursuit of the final battle. CVs played a significant role in searching for and finding the enemy.

In WOWS we get tiny 40km square maps loaded with not only surface ships but up to 4 CVs and 400 planes.  Every plane that get's airborne is guaranteed to spot something within a minute of launch.

Now we try to pack even more CVs into the new game and act flabbergasted when the user base hates the results.

This game would need more than one CV per team if it offered 250 sq.km maps and 3-hour time limits rather than 20 minutes.

As someone who has spent over $1500 to support the game since 2016, my wallet is locked for the time being.  When you make my fave category of ships useless, DDs, by trying to appease a crowd obsessed with CVs, I'm no longer happy.

:Smile_sad:

 

 

 

 

I am joining you in this anyone else who agrees say aye dead serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,149 posts
9,276 battles
3 minutes ago, landedkiller said:

I am joining you in this anyone else who agrees say aye dead serious.

Aye but for very different reasons. I'm not discontent with things other than MM which I think should be split per ship WR into vets and newbs, but that's another story.

Basically I got the ships I want and until I see some really unique new ships, premium or otherwise, I'm done buying any. What I really want to see are pre-dreadnoughts brought in en masse to keep the lower tiers fun and newb-friendly, as well as supply many must-have ships for collectors like myself. Here's my thread on this, do drop in and vote if you haven't:

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
473
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
1,770 posts
3,961 battles
3 minutes ago, Stauffenberg44 said:

Aye but for very different reasons. I'm not discontent with things other than MM which I think should be split per ship WR into vets and newbs, but that's another story.

Basically I got the ships I want and until I see some really unique new ships, premium or otherwise, I'm done buying any. What I really want to see are pre-dreadnoughts brought in en masse to keep the lower tiers fun and newb-friendly, as well as supply many must-have ships for collectors like myself. Here's my thread on this, do drop in and vote if you haven't:

 

 

I have hope to see USS Virginia the first one introduced to the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
346
[BROOK]
Members
1,634 posts

IMHO no one has come close to beating Carriers at War for CV fighting.  Brilliant turnbased gsme.  Ancient graphics but never a dull moment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
766
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
1,116 posts
16,116 battles
1 hour ago, TheGreatBlasto said:

if it offered 250 sq.km maps

That's about half the size of the tier 1-3 maps.

Edited by grumpymunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[-K_P-]
Members
287 posts
2,775 battles
1 hour ago, TheGreatBlasto said:

In WOWS we get tiny 40km square maps loaded with not only surface ships but up to 4 CVs and 400 planes.  Every plane that get's airborne is guaranteed to spot something within a minute of launch.

Now we try to pack even more CVs into the new game and act flabbergasted when the user base hates the results.

This game would need more than one CV per team if it offered 250 sq.km maps and 3-hour time limits rather than 20 minutes. ...

Before 0.8.0 1 or 2 CVs with 4-8 squadrons in the air at the same time (8-16 squadrons in the air at a time)

After 0.8.0 1-4 CVs with 1 squadron in the air at a time (4 squadrons in the air at a time [not counting auto-pilot fighters])

You were more likely to be perma-spotted under the old design if you were up against a decent CV Captain.  Only difference is now the planes are being piloted by a human instead of a bot, so they can dodge the Flak, and they have rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,853
[SIM]
Members
4,000 posts
6,730 battles

Kay, but they're actually trying to take CVs out of the trash heap and make them into something that more players will want to play, instead of being the broken niche class that they were before. Also, the whole player base doesn't hate the result. A bunch of people who would rather complain on the forums than play the game now hate the result, but there's no way to tell what percentage of the playerbase that they actually represent.

I don't blame you for being a discouraged DD player for facing two or three CVs on the enemy team each game, though. It's really not a comfortable class to play right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,149 posts
9,276 battles
On 2/2/2019 at 7:41 PM, landedkiller said:

I have hope to see USS Virginia the first one introduced to the game. 

Tell me why and I may add it to the US list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
306
[RUST]
Beta Testers
994 posts
11,220 battles

Yeah why don’t we add the need to refuel resupply while we are at it as well. :fish_palm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×