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

Too many gimmicks & fake ships

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
3 posts
1,821 battles

I've played this game since the closed beta and have loved it ever since.

That being said, this is no longer the game I've enjoyed for so long. The game has slowly evolved into a giant gimmick. With new ships appearing every patch, plenty of them never existing as anything more than a napkin sketch in real life, it seems like WG is trying too hard. Take the Kremlin, a ship that never existed. Russian bias at it's finest. This thing has more hit points than any other ship. It has nearly the biggest guns and impossible armor to pen---unless flat broadside. Why is this allowed to exist in the game? How about the Conqueror and its superheal. Or everything that is the Georgia. (And I hear submarines are coming). I'm all for new content and making ships have distinct differences from branch to branch. But could you do it without making the game gimmicky?

Is all this just my imagination? Anyone else agree? Let me know.

  • Cool 7
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,891
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,477 posts

What do you want them to do?  Stop creating new ships? 

That's pretty much the death of the game.  We don't need a bunch more "same thing as all the others" ships.  It would be boring and kind of pointless.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
110 posts
6 minutes ago, _IndianaJones_ said:

I've played this game since the closed beta and have loved it ever since.

That being said, this is no longer the game I've enjoyed for so long. The game has slowly evolved into a giant gimmick. With new ships appearing every patch, plenty of them never existing as anything more than a napkin sketch in real life, it seems like WG is trying too hard. Take the Kremlin, a ship that never existed. Russian bias at it's finest. This thing has more hit points than any other ship. It has nearly the biggest guns and impossible armor to pen---unless flat broadside. Why is this allowed to exist in the game? How about the Conqueror and its superheal. Or everything that is the Georgia. (And I hear submarines are coming). I'm all for new content and making ships have distinct differences from branch to branch. But could you do it without making the game gimmicky?

Is all this just my imagination? Anyone else agree? Let me know.

LOL, you do realize this is a game and not a simulation.  It's not meant to be historically accurate or real to life.  Get with reality kid.  This game has been far from realistic from the start with smoke screens and blind firing.  I mean come on, posts like this have been around from the start, you think you're actually making a statement/  Go play something else if you're tired if it.  I could care less if they keep adding ships that never existed, it's not about whether its real or not its how you have fun.  And this Russian Biased crap, what a load of dung that is.  Those are the words of people who are just unhappy that they aren't getting what they specifically want.  So sad.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,482
[CAG-1]
Members
1,872 posts
6 minutes ago, _IndianaJones_ said:

I've played this game since the closed beta and have loved it ever since.

That being said, this is no longer the game I've enjoyed for so long. The game has slowly evolved into a giant gimmick. With new ships appearing every patch, plenty of them never existing as anything more than a napkin sketch in real life, it seems like WG is trying too hard. Take the Kremlin, a ship that never existed. Russian bias at it's finest. This thing has more hit points than any other ship. It has nearly the biggest guns and impossible armor to pen---unless flat broadside. Why is this allowed to exist in the game? How about the Conqueror and its superheal. Or everything that is the Georgia. (And I hear submarines are coming). I'm all for new content and making ships have distinct differences from branch to branch. But could you do it without making the game gimmicky?

Is all this just my imagination? Anyone else agree? Let me know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a USN "paper ship" released just recently? Was it the Georgia or Ohio? I don't recall...

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[UMP]
Members
253 posts
4,306 battles

I dont necessarily have a problem with the paper ship angle...until they throw in a stealth submersible AEGIS cruiser or something.

I do think their abilities and stats need balancing. RU ships in particular are....just too great at pretty much everything they do.

Pre latest patch, their DD's could put out more AA than even DM, and their deck armor was harder to penetrate than a nun convent. That's just wrong.

In conclusion....Not the ship itself I hate, just the implementation of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[PISD]
Members
957 posts
4,726 battles
22 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

What do you want them to do?  Stop creating new ships? 

That's pretty much the death of the game.  We don't need a bunch more "same thing as all the others" ships.  It would be boring and kind of pointless.

For instance, instead of a cold war era cruiser (Colbert) or a paper ship (Smolensk), why not a Dido class? Not only it is a real ship, but a WW2 ship. They seems to choose ships base on the marketing and the tier, not on the historical value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,891
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,477 posts
1 minute ago, Y_Nagato said:

For instance, instead of a cold war era cruiser (Colbert) or a paper ship (Smolensk), why not a Dido class? Not only it is a real ship, but a WW2 ship. They seems to choose ships base on the marketing and the tier, not on the historical value.

Of course they do.  The game is a tool to make as much money as possible.  It's not a historical simulator.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,804
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,217 posts
10,721 battles
39 minutes ago, _IndianaJones_ said:

I've played this game since the closed beta and have loved it ever since.

That being said, this is no longer the game I've enjoyed for so long. The game has slowly evolved into a giant gimmick. With new ships appearing every patch, plenty of them never existing as anything more than a napkin sketch in real life, it seems like WG is trying too hard. Take the Kremlin, a ship that never existed. Russian bias at it's finest. This thing has more hit points than any other ship. It has nearly the biggest guns and impossible armor to pen---unless flat broadside. Why is this allowed to exist in the game? How about the Conqueror and its superheal. Or everything that is the Georgia. (And I hear submarines are coming). I'm all for new content and making ships have distinct differences from branch to branch. But could you do it without making the game gimmicky?

Is all this just my imagination? Anyone else agree? Let me know.

do you want 1/4th of the ships in the game to disappear? to say nothing of how barren the Russian tech tree would become if the ships that were never built were taken out, theyd have, maybe at most, 10 or 12 ships total

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,636 posts
93 battles
50 minutes ago, _IndianaJones_ said:

I've played this game since the closed beta and have loved it ever since.

That being said, this is no longer the game I've enjoyed for so long. The game has slowly evolved into a giant gimmick. With new ships appearing every patch, plenty of them never existing as anything more than a napkin sketch in real life, it seems like WG is trying too hard. Take the Kremlin, a ship that never existed. Russian bias at it's finest. This thing has more hit points than any other ship. It has nearly the biggest guns and impossible armor to pen---unless flat broadside. Why is this allowed to exist in the game? How about the Conqueror and its superheal. Or everything that is the Georgia. (And I hear submarines are coming). I'm all for new content and making ships have distinct differences from branch to branch. But could you do it without making the game gimmicky?

Is all this just my imagination? Anyone else agree? Let me know.

PSA: This game has never been a "historical warship simulator".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,636 posts
93 battles
41 minutes ago, ElectroVeeDub said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a USN "paper ship" released just recently? Was it the Georgia or Ohio? I don't recall...

"Oh, but that's OK since it's NATIONALISTIC PATRIOTIC MURRICAN and not some fake Russian crap"

  • Cool 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[DDCO]
Members
133 posts
10,138 battles
1 hour ago, _IndianaJones_ said:

I've played this game since the closed beta and have loved it ever since.

That being said, this is no longer the game I've enjoyed for so long. The game has slowly evolved into a giant gimmick. With new ships appearing every patch, plenty of them never existing as anything more than a napkin sketch in real life, it seems like WG is trying too hard. Take the Kremlin, a ship that never existed. Russian bias at it's finest. This thing has more hit points than any other ship. It has nearly the biggest guns and impossible armor to pen---unless flat broadside. Why is this allowed to exist in the game? How about the Conqueror and its superheal. Or everything that is the Georgia. (And I hear submarines are coming). I'm all for new content and making ships have distinct differences from branch to branch. But could you do it without making the game gimmicky?

Is all this just my imagination? Anyone else agree? Let me know.

WoWs is not a navy simulation game....they do a damn good job staying close to it, but it's not.

It's a navy action.....pvp based game.

You get a hella good game for free..and for a few bucks...you get an even better game.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,039
[ERN]
Modder, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
10,837 posts
4,868 battles
55 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

do you want 1/4th of the ships in the game to disappear? to say nothing of how barren the Russian tech tree would become if the ships that were never built were taken out, theyd have, maybe at most, 10 or 12 ships total

i thought tier 9 RU bbs and below was laid down or built in some way. while tier 10 was fake, i think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,231
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,025 posts
7,903 battles

Those "fake ships" (replace with paper, laid down and not completed and with actual fictional ships) are often needed to fill gaps in Tech Trees.

The British BB tree has three of such ships. And they can't really be replaced with something that was completed (except T8 if we throw Vanguard in there). What else would you do? Scrap the entire tree? Leave T9 and 10 empty?

  • Cool 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,231
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,025 posts
7,903 battles
1 hour ago, MajorRenegade said:

i thought tier 9 RU bbs and below was laid down or built in some way. while tier 10 was fake, i think

T9 and T6 were laid down, T4 was completed and saw service. The rest are paper designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
692
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,118 posts
4 hours ago, Flashtirade said:

Montana didn't exist either.

Montana was approved for manufacture and had her dry dock slip prepared. Which is more then you can say for 90% of the other paper ships in this game which never even made it past initial proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,482
[CAG-1]
Members
1,872 posts
34 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

Montana was approved for manufacture and had her dry dock slip prepared. Which is more then you can say for 90% of the other paper ships in this game which never even made it past initial proposal.

That's kinda not the point...

The OP's post has a bit of prejudice in there where he resents paper ships on the basis that they're not American. Some would argue it's borderline hate speech.

There simply isn't enough ships to create all the tech-trees that Wargaming is aiming for for all demo-graphs in a worldwide marketplace. They use "paper ships" as a business decision that's been proven to work. Nationalistic pride sells pixel ships in video games and they'll put out ships for all the major market places. WoWs is directly modeled after World of Tanks successful F2P formula. And WoTs has "paper tanks" too. To make this game viable for a decade of existence WG has to keep releasing new content or their pay-checks stop rolling in.

As long as there was a blue-print, incomplete hull, or some sort of records of the ship existing in some fashion... it's fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[PISD]
Members
957 posts
4,726 battles
9 hours ago, Burnsy said:

Of course they do.  The game is a tool to make as much money as possible.  It's not a historical simulator.

True, it is not. But, why putting in a paper ship (Smolensk) while you got basically the same style of ship that did exist (Dido class). Do they need that many Russian ships in the game? And especially, do we need that many tier 10 premium in such a short time delay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×