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

Just a thought...

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

356
[NSEW]
Members
1,726 posts
10,368 battles

Hello all,

With the exception of certain reoccurring hot topics in this thread. I've noticed an uptick of F2P threads making head way. Which got me thinking, and WG will not like what I'm about to say below (but probably doesn't mind, since they are the big whale here).

The rewards (chances) of getting ships on containers have dropped. This is in comparison to two years ago. I have seen more threads and videos about containers giving players from ships to Premium time/Doubloons. Now, it's replaced with Coal. The cost per particular items have risen as well. The other fact I'd like to add, is that as I have reached a certain phase where the novelty of the game have unfortunately come to end. I do still play it sure, but does the game entice me enough to buy ships, buy camo, buy signal packs, buy containers? Not any more. For me, with the exception of Premium time. Nothing else is worth it. Again, that's for me now. I don't like to gamble with my unlucky streak anymore with T8 CV MM (yep, insert eye roll), any more than with my real money. The rewards just aren't cutting it. The "fun" mystery part of opening a digitally wrapped box, is no longer. I now look for certainty. i.e. If I get 20 of these, do I get X item?  If the game has a certain, certainty of giving an item. Then and only then, I'd press purchase.

So...

What if, just ... What if the overall number of people not buying Premium containers dropped? 

Dropping enough, so that WG spreadsheet/data person gets an alert? Making it a subject to their next meeting, that they need to look into it, and perhaps make tweaks. I mean, this scenario is not entirely impossible/improbable right? right?

 

Another thing, I been a loyal customer in this relationship? I'm still here, I'm still very much active in the forum, still scouring the web for Warships content on free time, it still has my interest at heart. However, this circles back to ...There is something about the game that is now stale. Is it quality vs quantity feeling? I don't know. It's just ... bland vs before. There used to be more of everything in the past. More team play, more rewards (hell better rewards a.k.a. Doubloons), more of what is now to me personally as a bland tomato soup. Nothing special, just out of a can soup...and an even more affordable can of soup at that. Have I reached the burn out stage? Have the game reached it's peak for me in the last half of 2018? Am I just an older guy, being well ... an older guy?

 


 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,552
[ARGSY]
Members
18,363 posts
12,791 battles
5 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

I do still play it sure, but does the game entice me enough to buy ships, buy camo, buy signal packs, buy containers? Not any more. For me, with the exception of Premium time. Nothing else is worth it.

It's interesting because my spending in the game is roughly in the same place as yours but with different underlying motivations and reasoning.

Yes, the supply of premium ships that I feel like I absolutely have to have seems to have dried up, but so what? I'm having a REALLY good time with some of the tech-tree grinds I'm doing at the moment, and I don't need any more premium ships right now. If I'm not buying them, it's not because I'm tired of the game; it's through simple lack of need.

Yes, I feel like throwing money at expendable items is not a good idea, but that's because some of it is now available for coal and/or credits in-game, as are some of the ships. 

No, I do not feel the rewards are inadequate. I've won a whole bucketload of stuff since starting in August 2017, both in-game and also on various people's twitch streams because of my involvement in the game, and I stand to win even more if I can finish these directives.

I'm having a great time. Sure, I'm not spending money in WOWS right now (and my premium time is paid up till Christmas), but that's because right now there's nothing I need to spend it on in order to have fun. And I don't care if nothing else (except Premium time) ever does come along that I want to spend it on. It won't change how much I'm enjoying myself with what I've got.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
356
[NSEW]
Members
1,726 posts
10,368 battles
5 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

It's interesting because my spending in the game is roughly in the same place as yours but with different underlying motivations and reasoning.

I respect your varied motivations, and reasoning. I do. As well as the fact that, I'm glad to hear of your interest in the game hasn't waned in as much as how I have personally viewed it as the post above. Just different motivations and reasoning for different folks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
645
[PEEDZ]
Members
978 posts
7,824 battles

my spending on the game has drastically decreased. I just dont want to spend it on this game where CV's make the battle just cancer

my last money spent on this game was the christmas containers and that too because I had most of the premium ships and I only needed to get the rare premiums that WG stopped selling. didnt buy anything for 4 months till the space camos, where I bought 2 bionic camos and 1 space camo

I dont think there is anything else I am going to spend money on this game. it has reached a saturation point.

I dont spend money on converting doubloons to FXP as I can just spam the scenarios and get the FXP required.

Also all the new premiums being released are way too similar to the tech tree counterparts, and literally offer the same gameplay. no reason to buy it and try it out 

also the premium containers literally offer ships that are going to be realeased into the game soon. if i get them in the missions then cool, if not then I can wait till they are officially released and get it from the tech tree

Edited by LookUpAndSpit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
543
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
1,704 posts
4,097 battles

Just take a short vacation from the game.  2 weeks.  Come back and give it a go again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,991
[PVE]
Members
3,835 posts
16,370 battles
27 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

Dropping enough, so that WG spreadsheet/data person gets an alert? Making it a subject to their next meeting, that they need to look into it, and perhaps make tweaks. I mean, this scenario is not entirely impossible/improbable right? right?

Another thing, I been a loyal customer in this relationship? I'm still here, I'm still very much active in the forum, still scouring the web for Warships content on free time, it still has my interest at heart. However, this circles back to ...There is something about the game that is now stale. Is it quality vs quantity feeling? I don't know. It's just ... bland vs before. There used to be more of everything in the past. More team play, more rewards (hell better rewards a.k.a. Doubloons), more of what is now to me personally as a bland tomato soup. Nothing special, just out of a can soup...and an even more affordable can of soup at that. Have I reached the burn out stage? Have the game reached it's peak for me in the last half of 2018? Am I just an older guy, being well ... an older guy?

For me, and this is my personal opinion, the game now is focused on "gimmicks" to generate income; versus, quality and balanced gameplay with well thought out premium ships that complement that game play and are at least, historically researchable...  Having said this, I'm only looking at PT purchases in quarterly increments.  Nothing else.  No flags, no ships and nothing, ever again, for real money.   

For me and my close friends in this game, our "trust" in WG is long gone........along with several of our friends whom have left.  Have you noticed the deafening silence from our Texas WG contingent ?  Absolute silence from them and our host these past few months?  Oh, the monthly sales pitches and Update silliness, but not the "where we see this game at the end of 2019" type of real world discussions....  If they don't revert the game back to a quality standard, I suspect we'll even withdraw further into the "once a week clan" get together and completely stop spending, even for PT....    That analyst you mentioned above had a catharsis at Update 8.0 +20 hours as their "Danger Will Robinson !  Danger..." klaxon started screaming at 900 decibels.......  I'm sure that person is deaf now......   If they can recover from 8.0, which I doubt seriously, we might be more inclined to financially participate if the quality returns........   We aren't holding our collective breath either; because, many of us left WoTs en masse at about this point in that "reconfiguration into a kiddie shooter" event a while back....  Fool us once............

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,770
[SALVO]
Members
24,198 posts
24,546 battles
3 hours ago, Asym_KS said:

For me, and this is my personal opinion, the game now is focused on "gimmicks" to generate income; versus, quality and balanced gameplay with well thought out premium ships that complement that game play and are at least, historically researchable...  Having said this, I'm only looking at PT purchases in quarterly increments.  Nothing else.  No flags, no ships and nothing, ever again, for real money.   

For me and my close friends in this game, our "trust" in WG is long gone........along with several of our friends whom have left.  Have you noticed the deafening silence from our Texas WG contingent ?  Absolute silence from them and our host these past few months?  Oh, the monthly sales pitches and Update silliness, but not the "where we see this game at the end of 2019" type of real world discussions....  If they don't revert the game back to a quality standard, I suspect we'll even withdraw further into the "once a week clan" get together and completely stop spending, even for PT....    That analyst you mentioned above had a catharsis at Update 8.0 +20 hours as their "Danger Will Robinson !  Danger..." klaxon started screaming at 900 decibels.......  I'm sure that person is deaf now......   If they can recover from 8.0, which I doubt seriously, we might be more inclined to financially participate if the quality returns........   We aren't holding our collective breath either; because, many of us left WoTs en masse at about this point in that "reconfiguration into a kiddie shooter" event a while back....  Fool us once............

Asym, the game has always been pretty heavily focused on gimmicks.  Too much, in my opinion.  But there are too many players of this game who don't have what I consider enough respect for the historical nature of the game.  They don't respect that ships weren't nearly as different as all these gimmicks, both in consumables and in terms of "national flavor", would have you believe.  I think that these people seem to think the game would be boring without these things.  I don't agree.  It seems to me that they must get bored rather easily.  But regardless...

Let me use IJN premium DDs as an example.  The first premium IJN DD, the KamiFuijins, were actually not even as powerful as a fully upgraded Minekaze at the time they were first released.  And they were a pretty generic IJN DD all in all.  They've only come to be seen as OP because of the IJN DD nerf.  Then there's the Shinonome.  While a reward premium rather than a for-sale premium, it's still a pretty generic IJN torpedo boat DD.  Then we have the HSF Harekaze.  It's pretty gimmicky, and yet not really OP.  Its torps are stock Kagero torps, which are decent but not spectacular. And of the 3 hulls, the A-hull is a straight up Kagero, the B-hull is a sort of the love child of a Kagero and Akizuki, while the C-hull is sort of Kagero with USN guns (but so few that it's not really a good gunboat-er).  All in all, the Harekaze, while gimmicky with the 3 hulls, is pretty generic otherwise.   But then we get to the Asashio and the upcoming Yukikaze and the tier 7 one whose name I don't recall at the moment.  Each of these three are nothing both gimmick boats.  The Asashio and Yukikaze are polar opposite Kagero clones.  One with super long range torps that are BB/CV only DWTs (very inflexible), while the other has the very fast, but short ranged 8 km torps.  I suppose that one could argue that the Yukikaze isn't all that gimmicky, and I suppose that that's true.  But 8km torps on an IJN torp boat seems very risky, since it doesn't have the guns to be gunboating like a Lightning (which also has 8 km torps).    I guess what gets me is why won't WG just do a (non-anime) Kagero clone with torps that are more "standard" for a tier 8 Kagero.   The Yukikaze seems like it's going to be a very high risk, high reward kind of DD with those short range torps.

I guess that overall, it kind of bugs me that DDs seem to be the most gimmicked up type of ship when it comes to premiums.  BBs and cruisers seem to be much less gimmicky as premiums.

 

I personally think that most if not all of the people complaining about the CV rework are hypocrites.  There was never this level of outrage before, when things were far worse.  Some will claim that it's because there were fewer carriers in the game, which I find to be utter bovine scatology.  If something's bad, it doesn't require more of the same to make it worse.  Most of these hypocrites weren't expressing their outrage back during the RTS CV days.  Some were, but I don't think that they were the majority.    I think that the claims that it wasn't as bad before due to the lower numbers is just a smoke screen to cover their blatant hypocrisy.  

They knew that this rework was in progress.  What the hell did they think was going to be the result of the rework???  WG had made it plain that they wanted the rework to get more people playing carriers.  I'd like to think that they succeeded.  I rarely played RTS carriers.  Only enough to not get completely stale, because I liked doing missions, even if they required carriers.  But I rarely did much more than the occasional CV game in coop.  But with the rework, I'm playing CV quite often, because I like the change to the CV play style.  I find it fun and engaging.  (Ooops, I slid off a bit...)  What did these people think WG was going to do to CVs?  Make them pathetic and useless?  Uhhhh, then no one would be playing them and they'd have failed in their "get more people playing them" goal.   CV were always going to be a damage production ship type.  They're not a support type of ship.  Carriers have never existed to support the surface ships.  if anything, once carriers came into their own in WW2, surface ships were largely responsible for supporting the carriers, not the other way around.  Anyways, if carriers are a damage production ship type, that means that they're going to be attacking surface ships!  What did these hypocrites think that carrier planes were going to do?  Fly around sight seeing?  Getting ticked off because carrier planes do what they're supposed to do seems pretty stupid to me.  Just like raging at a BB that sinks you.  What's are the carrier planes or that BB supposed to do?  Shoot flowers at you???  COME ON!!!!

If all these people wanted CVs removed from the game, they should have spent all of 2018 campaigning to do exactly that, because waiting around to see how CVs got reworked in the hopes that things would get better was profoundly stupid.  Carriers were always going to be damage producers.  It was only a matter of the details of how they went about it.  But in the end, it was ALWAYS going to be CV planes attacking surface ships and doing damage.  End of story.  If they didn't like the idea of being attacked by carrier planes then waiting around to see how the rework came out was dumb, because anyone with two braincells to rub together could have figured out the general answer.   Planes attacking surface ships.  Ships shoot down some planes.  Planes damage ships.  Rinse and repeat.

 

I guess that that's all the ranting I have for now.  For what it's worth, my rant really wasn't directed at you, Asym.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,991
[PVE]
Members
3,835 posts
16,370 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

Asym, the game has always been pretty heavily focused on gimmicks.  Too much, in my opinion.  But there are too many players of this game who don't have what I consider enough respect for the historical nature of the game.  They don't respect that ships weren't nearly as different as all these gimmicks, both in consumables and in terms of "national flavor", would have you believe.  I think that these people seem to think the game would be boring without these things.  I don't agree.  It seems to me that they must get bored rather easily.  But regardless...

Let me use IJN premium DDs as an example.  The first premium IJN DD, the KamiFuijins, were actually not even as powerful as a fully upgraded Minekaze at the time they were first released.  And they were a pretty generic IJN DD all in all.  They've only come to be seen as OP because of the IJN DD nerf.  Then there's the Shinonome.  While a reward premium rather than a for-sale premium, it's still a pretty generic IJN torpedo boat DD.  Then we have the HSF Harekaze.  It's pretty gimmicky, and yet not really OP.  Its torps are stock Kagero torps, which are decent but not spectacular. And of the 3 hulls, the A-hull is a straight up Kagero, the B-hull is a sort of the love child of a Kagero and Akizuki, while the C-hull is sort of Kagero with USN guns (but so few that it's not really a good gunboat-er).  All in all, the Harekaze, while gimmicky with the 3 hulls, is pretty generic otherwise.   But then we get to the Asashio and the upcoming Yukikaze and the tier 7 one whose name I don't recall at the moment.  Each of these three are nothing both gimmick boats.  The Asashio and Yukikaze are polar opposite Kagero clones.  One with super long range torps that are BB/CV only DWTs (very inflexible), while the other has the very fast, but short ranged 8 km torps.  I suppose that one could argue that the Yukikaze isn't all that gimmicky, and I suppose that that's true.  But 8km torps on an IJN torp boat seems very risky, since it doesn't have the guns to be gunboating like a Lightning (which also has 8 km torps).    I guess what gets me is why won't WG just do a (non-anime) Kagero clone with torps that are more "standard" for a tier 8 Kagero.   The Yukikaze seems like it's going to be a very high risk, high reward kind of DD with those short range torps.

I guess that overall, it kind of bugs me that DDs seem to be the most gimmicked up type of ship when it comes to premiums.  BBs and cruisers seem to be much less gimmicky as premiums.

I personally think that most if not all of the people complaining about the CV rework are hypocrites.  There was never this level of outrage before, when things were far worse.  Some will claim that it's because there were fewer carriers in the game, which I find to be utter bovine scatology.  If something's bad, it doesn't require more of the same to make it worse.  Most of these hypocrites weren't expressing their outrage back during the RTS CV days.  Some were, but I don't think that they were the majority.    I think that the claims that it wasn't as bad before due to the lower numbers is just a smoke screen to cover their blatant hypocrisy.  

They knew that this rework was in progress.  What the hell did they think was going to be the result of the rework???  WG had made it plain that they wanted the rework to get more people playing carriers.  I'd like to think that they succeeded.  I rarely played RTS carriers.  Only enough to not get completely stale, because I liked doing missions, even if they required carriers.  But I rarely did much more than the occasional CV game in coop.  But with the rework, I'm playing CV quite often, because I like the change to the CV play style.  I find it fun and engaging.  (Ooops, I slid off a bit...)  What did these people think WG was going to do to CVs?  Make them pathetic and useless?  Uhhhh, then no one would be playing them and they'd have failed in their "get more people playing them" goal.   CV were always going to be a damage production ship type.  They're not a support type of ship.  Carriers have never existed to support the surface ships.  if anything, once carriers came into their own in WW2, surface ships were largely responsible for supporting the carriers, not the other way around.  Anyways, if carriers are a damage production ship type, that means that they're going to be attacking surface ships!  What did these hypocrites think that carrier planes were going to do?  Fly around sight seeing?  Getting ticked off because carrier planes do what they're supposed to do seems pretty stupid to me.  Just like raging at a BB that sinks you.  What's are the carrier planes or that BB supposed to do?  Shoot flowers at you???  COME ON!!!!

If all these people wanted CVs removed from the game, they should have spent all of 2018 campaigning to do exactly that, because waiting around to see how CVs got reworked in the hopes that things would get better was profoundly stupid.  Carriers were always going to be damage producers.  It was only a matter of the details of how they went about it.  But in the end, it was ALWAYS going to be CV planes attacking surface ships and doing damage.  End of story.  If they didn't like the idea of being attacked by carrier planes then waiting around to see how the rework came out was dumb, because anyone with two braincells to rub together could have figured out the general answer.   Planes attacking surface ships.  Ships shoot down some planes.  Planes damage ships.  Rinse and repeat.

I guess that that's all the ranting I have for now.  For what it's worth, my rant really wasn't directed at you, Asym. 

Culture trumps process 100% of the time....  Talking about CV's before 8.0 and seeing the new meta CV's are apples and oranges...  8.0 CV's "threatened the status quo" and disrupted the battlespace to the point, even the best players could not adapt fast enough....  I watched a lot videos that first week and everything Toffler said about technology adaptation being faster than a culture can accept, played out....  The "culture" said not NO, but **** No......do you understand WG, OVER.....!

I kinda of saw that coming and have been talking about this kind of crap now for months....  Whether players listen or reject what one says I can't control....

Bottom Line:  carriers have a "place at the table" of this game.  They changed WW2 and are the center of current power projection doctrine.  Having said that, they must have unique "value" that aren't competing with the other ships....  BB's have long range and deadly guns.  Cruisers have radar, HE Spam and speed and IJN Cruiser have great Torpedoes as well.  DD's had stealth and speed; coupled with guns and most especially, torpedoes.....   Carriers have to be able to "fight other Carriers" and defend the SAG's !!!  That is what they do !  Attacking land targets comes second.  And, attacking other ships is third "if they can get to them...."  

Finding an exciting and challenging "lane for the CV" is not easy....  Carriers fighting carriers is a good way to develop this concept because without an efficient Combat Air Patrol (CAP), surface combatants are in a degree of trouble.....  We need a win-win, not another meta situation and it seems, WG simply isn't listening nor is trying to develop player teams to solve this riddle....  I even posted a logic model to see if anyone wants to start looking at the logic of the carrier use in-game....  As my kids say, "talk is cheap" and that is why I'd love to see carrier players start populating that logic model..........so, the rest of us can "see" what they want and see first, and then we can react and flesh out where this train wreck can go.....logically...

I'm not a hypocrite.....  I just know that strategic and tactical weapons don't mix well............   And, as Update 8.0 illustrated, the culture absolutely rejected the 8.0 carriers....  I take no offense and enjoy the discussions, and learn from them.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
356
[NSEW]
Members
1,726 posts
10,368 battles
33 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

I take no offense and enjoy the discussions, and learn from them.

and my sentiments to you in return. Very well said sir, very well said indeed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,770
[SALVO]
Members
24,198 posts
24,546 battles
1 hour ago, Asym_KS said:

Culture trumps process 100% of the time....  Talking about CV's before 8.0 and seeing the new meta CV's are apples and oranges...  8.0 CV's "threatened the status quo" and disrupted the battlespace to the point, even the best players could not adapt fast enough....  I watched a lot videos that first week and everything Toffler said about technology adaptation being faster than a culture can accept, played out....  The "culture" said not NO, but **** No......do you understand WG, OVER.....!

I kinda of saw that coming and have been talking about this kind of crap now for months....  Whether players listen or reject what one says I can't control....

Bottom Line:  carriers have a "place at the table" of this game.  They changed WW2 and are the center of current power projection doctrine.  Having said that, they must have unique "value" that aren't competing with the other ships....  BB's have long range and deadly guns.  Cruisers have radar, HE Spam and speed and IJN Cruiser have great Torpedoes as well.  DD's had stealth and speed; coupled with guns and most especially, torpedoes.....   Carriers have to be able to "fight other Carriers" and defend the SAG's !!!  That is what they do !  Attacking land targets comes second.  And, attacking other ships is third "if they can get to them...."  

Finding an exciting and challenging "lane for the CV" is not easy....  Carriers fighting carriers is a good way to develop this concept because without an efficient Combat Air Patrol (CAP), surface combatants are in a degree of trouble.....  We need a win-win, not another meta situation and it seems, WG simply isn't listening nor is trying to develop player teams to solve this riddle....  I even posted a logic model to see if anyone wants to start looking at the logic of the carrier use in-game....  As my kids say, "talk is cheap" and that is why I'd love to see carrier players start populating that logic model..........so, the rest of us can "see" what they want and see first, and then we can react and flesh out where this train wreck can go.....logically...

I'm not a hypocrite.....  I just know that strategic and tactical weapons don't mix well............   And, as Update 8.0 illustrated, the culture absolutely rejected the 8.0 carriers....  I take no offense and enjoy the discussions, and learn from them.

I don't buy this argument that carriers are strategic weapons.  They were simply tactical weapons with greater range than the previous longest range tactical sea-going weapon (i.e. battleships).

I also don't buy this "culture" argument.  To me, this is just some form of the "argument from authority" logical fallacy.   It feels like you're trying to shut down the discussion by not talking in terms that most of us can process.

And trying to argue that surface ships should be the third priority for carriers sounds like rampant nonsense to me.  There's a little more sense to arguing that CVs should be attacking enemy CVs, but there's a flaw there.  Just like with RTS CVs, attacking enemy CVs is largely a waste of time when the enemy's non-CVs are so much closer.  The CV player is no different from the BB or CA player.  They're there to do damage, kill ships, and hopefully help win battles.  And they're going to have a larger impact on the outcome if they're getting in more attacks on the enemies that are closer than they are chasing after the enemy ships that are the furthest away from their own carrier.  Obviously, in real life, there would have been more importance on going after the enemy carriers, but much of that is for strategic reasons, i.e. sinking a CV removes an important enemy naval resource that cannot be easily replaced.   Even heavily damaging an enemy CV IRL would probably remove that CV from active duty for a significant period of time.  THAT is real strategic thinking, not thinking that carriers are strategic weapons just because they have greater combat range than BBs.  But in game terms, carriers are just as much a tactical weapon as any other ship in the game.

Just as an aside, one could argue that there was some measure of strategic value in destroying tanks in WoT's clan wars when the tank locking mechanic is in play.  In WoT, if your clan was involved in an ongoing (and unofficial) war with another clan, if you were killing off more of the other clan's tier 10 tanks than you were losing, you could gain an advantage if the other clan's players didn't have deep garages full of tier 10 tanks, and were stuck with a bunch of locked (and thus, unusable) tanks.  But without any tank (or ship) locking mechanism, there's no strategic value to destroying tanks (or ships).  Only the tactical value.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,991
[PVE]
Members
3,835 posts
16,370 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

I don't buy this argument that carriers are strategic weapons.  They were simply tactical weapons with greater range than the previous longest range tactical sea-going weapon (i.e. battleships).

I also don't buy this "culture" argument.  To me, this is just some form of the "argument from authority" logical fallacy.   It feels like you're trying to shut down the discussion by not talking in terms that most of us can process.

And trying to argue that surface ships should be the third priority for carriers sounds like rampant nonsense to me.  There's a little more sense to arguing that CVs should be attacking enemy CVs, but there's a flaw there.  Just like with RTS CVs, attacking enemy CVs is largely a waste of time when the enemy's non-CVs are so much closer.  The CV player is no different from the BB or CA player.  They're there to do damage, kill ships, and hopefully help win battles.  And they're going to have a larger impact on the outcome if they're getting in more attacks on the enemies that are closer than they are chasing after the enemy ships that are the furthest away from their own carrier.  Obviously, in real life, there would have been more importance on going after the enemy carriers, but much of that is for strategic reasons, i.e. sinking a CV removes an important enemy naval resource that cannot be easily replaced.   Even heavily damaging an enemy CV IRL would probably remove that CV from active duty for a significant period of time.  THAT is real strategic thinking, not thinking that carriers are strategic weapons just because they have greater combat range than BBs.  But in game terms, carriers are just as much a tactical weapon as any other ship in the game.

Just as an aside, one could argue that there was some measure of strategic value in destroying tanks in WoT's clan wars when the tank locking mechanic is in play.  In WoT, if your clan was involved in an ongoing (and unofficial) war with another clan, if you were killing off more of the other clan's tier 10 tanks than you were losing, you could gain an advantage if the other clan's players didn't have deep garages full of tier 10 tanks, and were stuck with a bunch of locked (and thus, unusable) tanks.  But without any tank (or ship) locking mechanism, there's no strategic value to destroying tanks (or ships).  Only the tactical value.

Sigh...  It's Ok we disagree.....  In reality, it doesn't really matter what you or I think....    I seriously doubt the CV issues will ever be resolved positively to some level of agreement....  The game isn't going anywhere; just like WoTs we all left years ago.... 

Cv's need to fight CV's and to get a chance to destroy the other CV (s), they'd have to destroy the CAP first......fighter to fighter.  Once the CAP is gone, then CV's can attack anyone they want !  And, the you have a less skilled CV driver and that person starts the game attacking ships instead of finding and coaxing a fighter to fighter engagement, you are at a disadvantage from the start.    I know, you don't agree; and, that's fine.......but, until CV's "fit into the game with a clear purpose", they will never be accepted because there can not be "One ship class to rule them all...." 

A great many of us won't see what this becomes unless changes start happening pretty darn quick........  We are bleeding people out of this game.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,770
[SALVO]
Members
24,198 posts
24,546 battles
1 minute ago, Asym_KS said:

Sigh...  It's Ok we disagree.....  In reality, it doesn't really matter what you or I think....    I seriously doubt the CV issues will ever be resolved positively to some level of agreement....  The game isn't going anywhere; just like WoTs we all left years ago.... 

Cv's need to fight CV's and to get a chance to destroy the other CV (s), they'd have to destroy the CAP first......fighter to fighter.  Once the CAP is gone, then CV's can attack anyone they want !  And, the you have a less skilled CV driver and that person starts the game attacking ships instead of finding and coaxing a fighter to fighter engagement, you are at a disadvantage from the start.    I know, you don't agree; and, that's fine.......but, until CV's "fit into the game with a clear purpose", they will never be accepted because there can not be "One ship class to rule them all...." 

A great many of us won't see what this becomes unless changes start happening pretty darn quick........  We are bleeding people out of this game.....

I think that CVs do have a clear purpose, just like BBs have a clear purpose.  Do damage and kill ships.  And I don't think that they're "one ship type to rule them all".  Frankly, it's murder sometimes trying to get damage, particularly when you're in a tier 8 CV in a tier 10 battle.  Other tier 8 ships feel more useful in t10 battles than tier 8 CVs, if it's a very heavy tier 10 battle.  It's freaking sad when you try to make a dive bomber attack on a tier 10 BB that's all by itself (no AA buddy), have it perfectly lined up and make a good attack run, and the BB's AA is just so strong that not a single one of your planes SURVIVES to even drop a single bomb.  That's just wrong.  Other ship types at tier 8 don't have that level of uselessness against tier 10 ships.  It's one of the nice things about WoWS compared to WoT, where tier 8 tanks with very few exceptions, often can't even scratch tier 10 heavies, sometimes even using gold ammo (tier 8 TDs being the exception).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,991
[PVE]
Members
3,835 posts
16,370 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

I think that CVs do have a clear purpose, just like BBs have a clear purpose.  Do damage and kill ships.  And I don't think that they're "one ship type to rule them all".  Frankly, it's murder sometimes trying to get damage, particularly when you're in a tier 8 CV in a tier 10 battle.  Other tier 8 ships feel more useful in t10 battles than tier 8 CVs, if it's a very heavy tier 10 battle.  It's freaking sad when you try to make a dive bomber attack on a tier 10 BB that's all by itself (no AA buddy), have it perfectly lined up and make a good attack run, and the BB's AA is just so strong that not a single one of your planes SURVIVES to even drop a single bomb.  That's just wrong.  Other ship types at tier 8 don't have that level of uselessness against tier 10 ships.  It's one of the nice things about WoWS compared to WoT, where tier 8 tanks with very few exceptions, often can't even scratch tier 10 heavies, sometimes even using gold ammo (tier 8 TDs being the exception).

OK, what?  Seriously.....? 

Take a Tier 8 "anything" and for MONTHS, fight Tier 10 "Any things" and tell me something new...  that's not unique to CV's.........  I can't tell you how many times i was lucky just to get the damage I got........  match, after Match, after Match...

Here's another bit of reality, and I hope I am being succinct and clear:  a lot of good and brave dive bomber and torpedo pilots died just trying to "get to the ships" let alone surviving the ships AA: where, living was a dream.   That was the reality for all pilots in WW2 late war.    in case you didn't notice, WG attempted to make CV's the current meta/OP class to boost sales....  If failed completely...  Now, the pieces are all over the place and you "expect to "do damage and kill Ships..."  8.0 was the chance; and, it "just doesn't work" with CV's as the dominant ships class.........   That's why they are attempting to salvage what is left......pieces....

Look, we are all frustrated with this chaos.  I want CV's to have a clear role, with equal opportunities to create and generate "Value"......  No more or no less than every other ship type....   Again, the problem is Carriers fight with Airplanes and this is World of Ships..........not world of planes....  For carriers to exist beyond the scraps left over from 8.0, they must "be part" of a combined arms team.......and, they can't lead it from behind......where they are forced to be !  They aren't surface combatants and never have been............their role isn't LOS fighting and their most essential values are: spotting and Combat Air Patrols to protect Surface Action groups from other aircraft !  That is their historic niche and a "way to participate as an equal in team actions....."  If the CAP is skilled enough, then, they have offensive capabilities and are limited by Anti-Aircraft systems....  That's the expectation from history and would serve this game well.......

This isn't finding fault with you........  Many are frustrated with the same answers to the same questions: day in and day out....  I'm offering a suggestions many of my friends and I have pondered:  where do carriers fit in a first person shooter since they aren't actually fighting ship to ship...........  This idea of carrier tactics has value since it is a clearly defined role the carriers must play (defending against other aircraft....)  If they fail, the entire team suffers....and, that should be rewarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
356
[NSEW]
Members
1,726 posts
10,368 battles
3 hours ago, Crucis said:

Frankly, it's murder sometimes trying to get damage, particularly when you're in a tier 8 CV in a tier 10 battle.  Other tier 8 ships feel more useful in t10 battles than tier 8 CVs, if it's a very heavy tier 10 battle.  It's freaking sad when you try to make a dive bomber attack on a tier 10 BB that's all by itself (no AA buddy), have it perfectly lined up and make a good attack run, and the BB's AA is just so strong that not a single one of your planes SURVIVES to even drop a single bomb.  That's just wrong.  Other ship types at tier 8 don't have that level of uselessness against tier 10 ships.

I'm gonna chime in, and agree with those experiences. I too have been in many T10 majority battles with my T8 CV RN. It was a struggle to say the least. Good thing is, or the silver lining? I got to learn how to CV better in the process. Specially at avoiding ships that has instant delete AA power, to my poor T8s. However, I'm not justifying the huge gap that the T8 has versus T10 ships. This is something that is rather lacking heavily. Just to clarify, this is my own personal experience. Not a sweeping statement. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×