Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao

WG Can we address the Elephants in the room please

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
1,375 posts
12,631 battles

So I've been playing this game since alpha, and since then I've seen many ships come through to testing or teased, or even making into the game to be removed. One thing I want to know is the official status of these ships because some of them are highly sought after or wanted, others are just cool ships. Here's a list I have so far:

Shinano: Last seen Early Alpha

post-1002239667-0-98345700-1428756885.jp

Tone: Last seen ????

5T4NNoi8Blcw_PUUMcEKAa2WqH84UlWmPdCWyCNW

Kitakami: Last seen end of Beta

vqa2h0ygp71doOSzPGZ0L4yF1FJXBeNiBRRMbAKl

Siegfried: Last seen 2019??

1_ohfZU4aK9v1StMgMDRc2sw-01.png.36aa6a7b

Yashima/Shikishima: Last seen Jan 14th 2020

y4lgdd0eopa41.jpg?fit=1920,1080&ssl=1

Slava: Last seen 2019????

WG_WoWS_SPb_Screenshots_supertest_0_8_3_

 

Not to mention the odd tier CVs and long ago hints at second USN, IJN, RN BB lines, these are all I can think of right now.

What else can you guys remember being hinted to make it to the game but suddenly going MIA?

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,083
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,287 posts
8,530 battles
17 minutes ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

 

Yashima/Shikishima: Last seen Jan 14th 2020

 

The Yashima is currently being tested on the live server as we speak.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
102
[ROCKR]
Members
356 posts
14,533 battles

I thought the elephant in the room is WoWs has turned into Candy Crush. Level this, get that...Money wall! It's more like an ex-wife on a cocaine bender.

  • Funny 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,611
[POP]
Members
2,988 posts
24,079 battles
1 hour ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

Slava: Last seen 2019????

WG has not released this ship so far they wouldn't dare its so OP broken however now that the new 20 inch gun IJN battleship will be soon released now they have there excuse to, so stay tuned for the salt to fly when Slava comes out.

One ship you did miss is the beauty which I would love to see in game

Image result for WOWS Akagi

  • Cool 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,469
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,487 posts
14,823 battles

Shinano: Whether she goes up to 10 or down to 8 has a hanger capacity problem and will be a huge problem to balance.

Tone: Being a hybrid is a balancing nightmare out of the gate.

Kitakami: Was pulled because with long range torps it was TK city and with short range torps nothing but a free kill.

The remaining three are WIP with release dates of SOONTM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
984
[KAPPA]
Members
3,117 posts
8,836 battles

But Yashima was basically just announced. It's not really MIA till at least the 12 month mark, what with the majority of premiums being announce 3-6 months before being released, and longer not even being that outside the norm since T-61.

Heck, I'd argue that they stopped giving more concrete release dates and updates because of the T-61 debacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
984
[KAPPA]
Members
3,117 posts
8,836 battles
18 minutes ago, tm63au said:

WG has not released this ship so far they wouldn't dare its so OP broken however now that the new 20 inch gun IJN battleship will be soon released now they have there excuse to, so stay tuned for the salt to fly when Slava comes out.

One ship you did miss is the beauty which I would love to see in game

Image result for WOWS Akagi

I doubt 20 inch guns will be OP as a base. Now, what they do to make them useful might, but certainly not 20 inch guns by themselves, as they don't do anything meaningful that 18 inch guns do, have a 33% smaller salvo, and have a higher threshold to arm, meaning more overpens. If anything, that ship would make Slava look even more broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,618
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,579 posts
4,223 battles
1 hour ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

So I've been playing this game since alpha, and since then I've seen many ships come through to testing or teased, or even making into the game to be removed. One thing I want to know is the official status of these ships because some of them are highly sought after or wanted, others are just cool ships. Here's a list I have so far:

Shinano: Last seen Early Alpha

The real elephant in the room is CVs in general, WG's just pretending they're fine. Let's get CVs fixed before adding more.

1 hour ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

Tone: Last seen ????

A) Hybrid is tricky enough to work into the game, and with the CV issues, I think it will be a while.

1 hour ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

 

Kitakami: Last seen end of Beta

Not a priority. Wouldn't be surprised to see it return in some way, but it would be some kind of event, I don't see the Kita ever going into Randoms again.

1 hour ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

Siegfried: Last seen 2019??

No idea, and everyone seemed really positive about it. Maybe WG decided that the RU server wouldn't like a good German premium so they shelved it.

1 hour ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

 

Yashima/Shikishima: Last seen Jan 14th 2020

In the pipes, coming soon I think.

1 hour ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

Slava: Last seen 2019????

Hopefully gone for good. That ship was the last thing we needed. I think WG actually listened for once. Still, I'm sure it will return if RU numbers keep declining.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,300
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,199 posts
12,101 battles

Shinano was pulled because A: she didn't mesh well with the line development and B: because there were concerns she may be too tough and all. Also because she sparked debate on what defined 'super carrier' and was around the borderline. She has a place better suited to a second line of IJN as the tier 10, a line that would be mostly, if not all conversion ships or modified designs. Though note when I speak of lines I mean full lines with odd  tiers - UK, IJN, and USN all have material to fill 2 full lines - though Wargaming seems intent on squandering some of it, and UK and USN at minimum can field a 3rd line evens only of in USN's case CVE/L that can be dedicated more toward ASW and UK a line of 'medium' CV's (role unknown). 

Tone - they have yet to find a way to implement a hybrid ship with carrier function. I believe the test version basically had what amounted to a glorified fighter consumable, to date idea appears to be shelved indefinitely.

Kitakami - Removed because of issues with team killing and power. There are only 3 ways this ship, or a ship like it, can currently be implemented - 

  1. Her original configuration, in which she had 7x 14 cm guns and 4x2 torpedo tubes aka Kuma
  2. Her Troop Transport configuration - 4x 14 cm guns, 6x4 torpedo tubes (24 total)
  3. Remove team damage, adjust reload time - if she uses the same garbage 20 km torps Shima has, then she likely needs to fire a full 20 torp broadside to hit anything given I've both seen and myself dodged 15 from Shimakaze's with how hard they've nerfed them.

Teamkill penalties simply aren't enough, and frankly unless you lock it behind a pretty insane wall that would cause uproar, and yet still maybe even then - to be blunt their are too many people that are careless or down right stupid when it comes to torp usage to be trusted with it. I had a DD hit my Battleship when he fired at a enemy retreating 13 km from him when he had a max range of around 9 km. I have been TK'ed TWICE by players in Russian DD's that only have a 4 km range and there is no way you can't see a battleship at 4 km. I enjoyed Kitakami because I wasn't one of the clowns who fired everything off I used 2 launchers at a time - though I did still get a TK or two because even I occasionally make mistakes.

The last 3 are just still in testing for various reasons, but should be soon.

 

59 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Shinano: Whether she goes up to 10 or down to 8 has a hanger capacity problem and will be a huge problem to balance.

The ship was fine at tier 10 actually (played it and against it in Alpha). While her belt armour is tough she was already big and sluggish being a Yamato conversion, odds are with the reworks joke of mobility for CV's even more so. Only things that may have issues are things like Friesland that have small guns and have to set fires. Most other ships should be fine though. And while hanger under RTS was up for debate, hanger is no issue at all under the rework. You have Ryujo - a CVL that had about 30 planes, against Ranger - a fleet carrier capable of operating double that number. Midways Hanger has been reduced to what, 30% -40% of her historical over 130 planes putting her on par with Shinano's defense group. Not to mention the argument from RTS days that while she had 47 planes including spares as her native air group she had room for 120 spare aircraft that while meant for other carriers or land bases she could have used just as easily given they were stored in the hanger.

Edited by WanderingGhost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,664 posts
42,437 battles

WV 1943, for sure.

And although I joke and tease about this ship myself, it's only because I think it would be fun to have.

WG is not developing it because it's my idea.

A tier 8 Battleship representing Scotland. The William Wallace and maybe the Robert the Bruce.

Although I am born and raised in Texas and quite possibly do not have any Scottish ancestry, I firmly believe I can get 40 thousand Scots to petition for such an idea to become reality.

And I am quite sure they will stand outside a Warships office somewhere dressed in kilts with painted blue face with a well known Disney character with red hair flinging arrows at the door.

With such an contingent blockading access to coffee and other beverages that WG employees enjoy during the day, they would likely concede defeat after just two days.

Especially if the 40 thousand Scots threaten to flip up their kilts.

WG, create a few Battleships for Scotland. I dinna think ye canna afford to say noe. Ye canna handle being surrounded.

Just ask the English how tough a task that was.

LOL

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Confused 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
477
[SOUP]
[SOUP]
Members
1,674 posts
7,376 battles

IMHO, Kaga replaced Akagi.

The only way I see Kitakami return is in an April Fool's event. (No offense or trolling intended)

Shinano, Tone (and Ise)... Balancing would be a nightmare. So, sadly (because I wanted those ships), we probably will never see them in game.

..Unless , of course, for some temporary event.. like the aforementioned April's Fools (HINT HINT WINK WINK WG)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,571
[WOLF2]
Members
4,985 posts
20,818 battles
2 hours ago, Bonfire79 said:

I thought the elephant in the room is WoWs has turned into Candy Crush. Level this, get that...Money wall! It's more like an ex-wife on a cocaine bender.

I find myself laughing yet horrified at the same time … 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,664 posts
42,437 battles
48 minutes ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

WV 1943, for sure.

And although I joke and tease about this ship myself, it's only because I think it would be fun to have.

WG is not developing it because it's my idea.

A tier 8 Battleship representing Scotland. The William Wallace and maybe the Robert the Bruce.

Although I am born and raised in Texas and quite possibly do not have any Scottish ancestry, I firmly believe I can get 40 thousand Scots to petition for such an idea to become reality.

And I am quite sure they will stand outside a Warships office somewhere dressed in kilts with painted blue face with a well known Disney character with red hair flinging arrows at the door.

With such an contingent blockading access to coffee and other beverages that WG employees enjoy during the day, they would likely concede defeat after just two days.

Especially if the 40 thousand Scots threaten to flip up their kilts.

WG, create a few Battleships for Scotland. I dinna think ye canna afford to say noe. Ye canna handle being surrounded.

Just ask the English how tough a task that was.

LOL

Oh, and I am quite sure if these Battleships arrive in the game, I may get adopted by a Scottish clan. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,664 posts
42,437 battles

California was last scene in rehab. Whereabouts unknown. But most likely a dark place because of no power from local utilities and unable to move much due to inflated fuel tax.

If we do see California, it might be after November. With a state flag of a bear , you would think it could be here faster.

But you don't have to outrun the bear, just outrun anybody else running with you. LOL

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,807
[1984]
Members
4,466 posts
21,506 battles
3 hours ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

So I've been playing this game since alpha, and since then I've seen many ships come through to testing or teased, or even making into the game to be removed. One thing I want to know is the official status of these ships because some of them are highly sought after or wanted, others are just cool ships. Here's a list I have so far:

Shinano: Last seen Early Alpha

post-1002239667-0-98345700-1428756885.jp

Tone: Last seen ????

5T4NNoi8Blcw_PUUMcEKAa2WqH84UlWmPdCWyCNW

Kitakami: Last seen end of Beta

vqa2h0ygp71doOSzPGZ0L4yF1FJXBeNiBRRMbAKl

Siegfried: Last seen 2019??

1_ohfZU4aK9v1StMgMDRc2sw-01.png.36aa6a7b

Yashima/Shikishima: Last seen Jan 14th 2020

y4lgdd0eopa41.jpg?fit=1920,1080&ssl=1

Slava: Last seen 2019????

WG_WoWS_SPb_Screenshots_supertest_0_8_3_

 

Not to mention the odd tier CVs and long ago hints at second USN, IJN, RN BB lines, these are all I can think of right now.

What else can you guys remember being hinted to make it to the game but suddenly going MIA?

 

I saw yashima yesterday morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,076
[PVE]
Members
7,284 posts
23,158 battles
2 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

Shinano was pulled because A: she didn't mesh well with the line development and B: because there were concerns she may be too tough and all. Also because she sparked debate on what defined 'super carrier' and was around the borderline. She has a place better suited to a second line of IJN as the tier 10, a line that would be mostly, if not all conversion ships or modified designs. Though note when I speak of lines I mean full lines with odd tiers - UK, IJN, and USN all have material to fill 2 full lines - though Wargaming seems intent on squandering some of it, and UK and USN at minimum can field a 3rd line evens only of in USN's case CVE/L that can be dedicated more toward ASW and UK a line of 'medium' CV's (role unknown). 

Tone - they have yet to find a way to implement a hybrid ship with carrier function. I believe the test version basically had what amounted to a glorified fighter consumable, to date idea appears to be shelved indefinitely.

Kitakami - Removed because of issues with team killing and power. There are only 3 ways this ship, or a ship like it, can currently be implemented - 

  1. Her original configuration, in which she had 7x 14 cm guns and 4x2 torpedo tubes aka Kuma
  2. Her Troop Transport configuration - 4x 14 cm guns, 6x4 torpedo tubes (24 total)
  3. Remove team damage, adjust reload time - if she uses the same garbage 20 km torps Shima has, then she likely needs to fire a full 20 torp broadside to hit anything given I've both seen and myself dodged 15 from Shimakaze's with how hard they've nerfed them.

Teamkill penalties simply aren't enough, and frankly unless you lock it behind a pretty insane wall that would cause uproar, and yet still maybe even then - to be blunt their are too many people that are careless or down right stupid when it comes to torp usage to be trusted with it. I had a DD hit my Battleship when he fired at a enemy retreating 13 km from him when he had a max range of around 9 km. I have been TK'ed TWICE by players in Russian DD's that only have a 4 km range and there is no way you can't see a battleship at 4 km. I enjoyed Kitakami because I wasn't one of the clowns who fired everything off I used 2 launchers at a time - though I did still get a TK or two because even I occasionally make mistakes.

The last 3 are just still in testing for various reasons, but should be soon.

 

The ship was fine at tier 10 actually (played it and against it in Alpha). While her belt armour is tough she was already big and sluggish being a Yamato conversion, odds are with the reworks joke of mobility for CV's even more so. Only things that may have issues are things like Friesland that have small guns and have to set fires. Most other ships should be fine though. And while hanger under RTS was up for debate, hanger is no issue at all under the rework. You have Ryujo - a CVL that had about 30 planes, against Ranger - a fleet carrier capable of operating double that number. Midways Hanger has been reduced to what, 30% -40% of her historical over 130 planes putting her on par with Shinano's defense group. Not to mention the argument from RTS days that while she had 47 planes including spares as her native air group she had room for 120 spare aircraft that while meant for other carriers or land bases she could have used just as easily given they were stored in the hanger.

Odd tiers won't be coming back they said but instead all of the old odd tiers will return as alternate even tiers w/gimmicks (such as planes that can land & cap as 1 of the options mentioned...forget the other options mentioned right off hand though).

When/if this occurs I'm sure other nations (besides just the 2...US & IJN...that had old odd tiers) will also receive other even tier alternate CVs as well... but what they may be remains a mystery...& will continue to at least until the subs get released.

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,300
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,199 posts
12,101 battles
4 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Odd tiers won't be coming back they said but instead all of the old odd tiers will return as alternate even tiers w/gimmicks (such as planes that can land & cap as 1 of the options mentioned...forget the other options mentioned right off hand though).

When/if this occurs I'm sure other nations (besides just the 2...US & IJN...that had old odd tiers) will also receive other even tier alternate CVs as well... but what they may be remains a mystery...& will continue to at least until the subs get released.

That's what they said over a year ago and that it wouldn't be long after the balance was adjusted (by their standards)- however more recent comments have indicated that they may have scrapped that idea as replies to threads in the last few months on the topic have used phrasing indicating they may reintroduce odd tiers such as 'We have no plans to add them back right now, and have made 0 mention of the alternative lines when it would have made sense to point out like when people are asking about the missing ships. Which makes sense because even people like me who are a tad more liberal with realism and are willing to bend it have lines - turning Essex class carriers in to seaplane carriers that fight fires and drop smoke (2 of the other gimmicks) is a bridge too far - or more like 6 too far. But the odd tiers bit has been like subs on a faster time line of going from 'solid no' to 'well, maybe' or 'yeah just not right now'. 

That and evens only so far has failed miserably. None of us that played carriers liked it from day 1, it hasn't grown on other players that tried them either. It hasn't helped them in balancing them better and faster, if anything it seems to have made them even worse at it. And that pales in to the comparison of what it has done to MM especially at tier 4 almost guaranteeing 2 and 3x CV's per team because the XP required is the same as RTS fom 4-6 but without the B hull of the tier 5 to research and any plane upgrades if any - but without the slightly better CV and XP gains, exacerbated by Wargaming's failures to give low tiers adequate AA let alone good AA while keeping many high tier ships too high and -2 for both a CV or a ship still being a huge issue. 

It was a dumb idea in I think it was August 2018 when they announced the even tiers and the rework, and it's still a dumb idea now. 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[P2W]
Members
426 posts
12,982 battles
9 hours ago, RipNuN2 said:

HMS Habakkuk of course :D

 

FDnmCdA.jpg

The really bad thing about the rework is that this ship wouldn’t be all that OP. You only get one squad in the air, so unless they are B-17s I don’t see any advantage. The ship could be immobile and wouldn’t be much different than half the CVs you see. Finally the presumably 7-figure HP also does not matter since the only times a carrier is sunk is either when it goes YOLO or is the last one in the game. 

The fact that this ship could be balanced says a lot about the quality of the rework. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,025
[HINON]
Members
13,824 posts
25 minutes ago, KaptainNemo_1 said:

The really bad thing about the rework is that this ship wouldn’t be all that OP. You only get one squad in the air, so unless they are B-17s I don’t see any advantage. The ship could be immobile and wouldn’t be much different than half the CVs you see. Finally the presumably 7-figure HP also does not matter since the only times a carrier is sunk is either when it goes YOLO or is the last one in the game. 

The fact that this ship could be balanced says a lot about the quality of the rework. 

 

Well the BB size guns would let you fire on anything you want  while large flights of B-24s bomb everything to death with gigantic payloads. Fires would also be meaningless against her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×