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

The reason WG is not getting my money anymore...

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
9 posts
5,943 battles

...is because of CVs.  They suck all of the fun out of the game.  I used to regularly spend money, but solely because of CVs, I have completely shut my wallet for many months.  The PR fiasco was a minor bump in the road.  CVs are a major problem.  

The chance that this message will have any effect whatsoever is below miniscule, but I don't really know what else to do.  Want me to play more and spend more?  Do something about CVs.  Something drastic and meaningful.  Like start a completely new game mode where I can choose to play without CVs at all.  

DPR

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Boring 5
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
890 posts
14,046 battles

Do what many of us have done.

I uninstalled months ago. I linger on these boards hoping to hear some news that might make me try the game again.

The longer I wait the less often I check back.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
817
[5D]
Members
1,023 posts
12,961 battles

keep crying CV are here to stay so git gud ....

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,734
[RLGN]
Members
13,778 posts
23,998 battles

Have fun at whatever you choose to do?

In any case; my lack of trouble dealing with carriers, outside getting angry at their occasionally vulturistic tendencies, leaves me completely unable to understand why so many players have problems.

The only answer my experience brings to mind is they have either given up trying, or just don’t care to try, even if the know how to deal with carriers.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,045
[RCNW3]
Beta Testers
3,066 posts
25,311 battles
1 hour ago, DredPieratRobert said:

...is because of CVs.  They suck all of the fun out of the game.  I used to regularly spend money, but solely because of CVs, I have completely shut my wallet for many months.  The PR fiasco was a minor bump in the road.  CVs are a major problem.  

The chance that this message will have any effect whatsoever is below miniscule, but I don't really know what else to do.  Want me to play more and spend more?  Do something about CVs.  Something drastic and meaningful.  Like start a completely new game mode where I can choose to play without CVs at all.  

DPR

You ante seen noting yet....................just wait until the Subs arrive.............................................. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,186
Members
1,489 posts
23,698 battles
1 hour ago, DredPieratRobert said:

...is because of CVs.  They suck all of the fun out of the game.  I used to regularly spend money, but solely because of CVs, I have completely shut my wallet for many months.  The PR fiasco was a minor bump in the road.  CVs are a major problem.  

The chance that this message will have any effect whatsoever is below miniscule, but I don't really know what else to do.  Want me to play more and spend more?  Do something about CVs.  Something drastic and meaningful.  Like start a completely new game mode where I can choose to play without CVs at all.  

DPR

Better late than never, I guess.

This post will be forgotten soon, so why not make a sig that continues to make a point, like mine. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,512
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
25,699 posts
14,007 battles
2 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Have fun at whatever you choose to do?

In any case; my lack of trouble dealing with carriers, outside getting angry at their occasionally vulturistic tendencies, leaves me completely unable to understand why so many players have problems.

The only answer my experience brings to mind is they have either given up trying, or just don’t care to try, even if the know how to deal with carriers.

I don't understand this either. I am not much of a DD player so for me where I have issue with CV's is the 3, 4, and some 5 ships with no or truly useless AA. Give me a ship with useful AA, strong enough that while the CV may get an attack off they will lose planes making follow up attacks more dodgy for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,814
[SALVO]
Members
24,236 posts
24,558 battles
1 hour ago, theLaalaa said:

Better late than never, I guess.

This post will be forgotten soon, so why not make a sig that continues to make a point, like mine. ;)

Then I suppose that you'd better be prepared to be a freeloader (meant in the gentlest sense) for a very long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,186
Members
1,489 posts
23,698 battles
8 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Then I suppose that you'd better be prepared to be a freeloader (meant in the gentlest sense) for a very long time.

Well, let's see, it's been just over 3 and a half years free-playing.... I believe I'm not only prepared, but well-practiced, wouldn't you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,814
[SALVO]
Members
24,236 posts
24,558 battles
Just now, theLaalaa said:

Well, let's see, it's been just over 3 and a half years free-playing.... I believe I'm not only prepared, but well-practiced, wouldn't you say?

Agreed, though honestly, after 3.5 years, I'd think you'd get the hint that some of those things just are not going to change and that your stance is being pretty much ignored by WG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,186
Members
1,489 posts
23,698 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

Agreed, though honestly, after 3.5 years, I'd think you'd get the hint that some of those things just are not going to change and that your stance is being pretty much ignored by WG.

Well, as long as they keep those mechanics, I keep my $$ for other things, like the sig says. So am I the looser for being ignored by WG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[SEA-7]
Members
135 posts
4,139 battles
4 hours ago, DredPieratRobert said:

...is because of CVs.  They suck all of the fun out of the game.  I used to regularly spend money, but solely because of CVs, I have completely shut my wallet for many months.  The PR fiasco was a minor bump in the road.  CVs are a major problem.  

The chance that this message will have any effect whatsoever is below miniscule, but I don't really know what else to do.  Want me to play more and spend more?  Do something about CVs.  Something drastic and meaningful.  Like start a completely new game mode where I can choose to play without CVs at all.  

DPR

Agreed they suck all (Ok fine, just, a lot) the fun out. Particularly in low tier, which should be really fun, but it isn't thanks to double CV every game. Tier 8-10 as long as you don't have double CV, could be worse. They are as fun to play against as a Smol, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a place in the game. I want to say that magic rockets are the biggest issue with CV. 

Carriers SHOULD be OP high tier, and underpowered at lower tiers, but limited to one per team in my opinion.

Waiting for the horror show that subs are might be ...

Edited by Fifi_Macaffee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,814
[SALVO]
Members
24,236 posts
24,558 battles
1 hour ago, theLaalaa said:

Well, as long as they keep those mechanics, I keep my $$ for other things, like the sig says. So am I the looser for being ignored by WG?

I suppose that if you don't feel like you're losing out, fine.  But, for what it's worth, I have no problem with any of those 4 items you list.

1. +/-2 MM: From my perspective, if one can't handle playing down 2 tiers once in a while, it says quite a bit about that person's ability in the game and their ability to adapt.

2. Detonations: They're realistic and a significant part of naval combat history, and thus belong in the game.

3. CV play: IMO, it's better than it was with RTS CVs where if a unicum CV main decided that it was time for you to die, you were probably dead unless perhaps you were in a dedicated AA ship.  Beyond that, thinking that carriers have no place in a game about early 20th century naval warfare is delusion in my considered opinion.  (Mind you, I'm not saying that you're making this specific complaint.  I'm just hitting the various complaints from various people I've seen about CVs from time to time.)

4. Nerfing premiums:  I wish that WG was more aggressive about nerfing premium ships.  It disgusts me that there are premium ships in the game that WG pull from sale because they're too cowardly to rebalance them out of fear of the self-entitled whiners.  And if they can't rebalance premium ships, all that you're left with is WG releasing underpowered premiums that they can incrementally buff without complaint from those same whiners.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,612 posts
34,039 battles

Unfortunately, leaving the game is a choice if you like. But the only way your argument or anyone else's that CVs are broken is to keep playing and showing the data that trends to that.

I play all ship types. So that I can get a better understanding of each ship type nuances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,186
Members
1,489 posts
23,698 battles

@Crucis I realize that were are at diametrically opposing positions on the issues in my sig. I won't answer your passive-aggressive comments as this thread is not a debate between us. I'll simply say that you are free to pay WG for products in support of the game's position and trajectory, and I am free to withhold $$ in protest to same. And when we both walk away from this game, we may assess the value it provided for the $$ we provided. Cheers.

Edited by theLaalaa
punctuation
  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9 posts
5,943 battles
19 hours ago, Tachnechdorus said:

You ante seen noting yet....................just wait until the Subs arrive.............................................. 

yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9 posts
5,943 battles
18 hours ago, Crucis said:

thinking that carriers have no place in a game about early 20th century naval warfare is delusion in my considered opinion. 

In real life, CVs made all other ships either obsolete, or they only served to protect the carriers.  Surface warfare was no longer.  This is a game, not a historically accurate simulation.  In real life, you don't want balance, you want your stuff to be way OP.  That doesn't work in WoWs.

Again, this is a GAME, and the fun part (for me at least) is the surface warfare.  Even if your argument is correct that CVs should be OP in order to follow historical accuracy (lol, historical accuracy with all these paper ships), the OP nature of CVs ...wait for it... sucks all the fun out, just like I originally said.  I don't want historical accuracy, I want a fun, competitive game.  Not being crapped on by CVs with no ability to fight back.

CV vs CV interaction should somehow be accentuated in order to remove the pressure on all the other ships.  How?  I dunno.   

Edited by DredPieratRobert
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,051
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,547 posts
4,943 battles
2 hours ago, DredPieratRobert said:

In real life, CVs made all other ships either obsolete, or they only served to protect the carriers.  Surface warfare was no longer.  This is a game, not a historically accurate simulation.  In real life, you don't want balance, you want your stuff to be way OP.  That doesn't work in WoWs.

Again, this is a GAME, and the fun part (for me at least) is the surface warfare.  Even if your argument is correct that CVs should be OP in order to follow historical accuracy (lol, historical accuracy with all these paper ships), the OP nature of CVs ...wait for it... sucks all the fun out, just like I originally said.  I don't want historical accuracy, I want a fun, competitive game.  Not being crapped on by CVs with no ability to fight back.

CV vs CV interaction should somehow be accentuated in order to remove the pressure on all the other ships.  How?  I dunno.   

That is not an accurate assessment of aircraft carriers before and during WWII.  People greatly exaggerate the effectiveness of aircraft carriers, often applying mid 1945 Pacific war carrier effectiveness to all theaters and for the entire war.  Going so far as to think the pre-war admirals were stupid not to have seen carriers as the direction to go.

In 1945 it took full strike packages from seven American carriers hours to sink a single battleship with flawed AA and little escort and yet people make it sound as if a single flight from a CV attacking a surface ship doomed that surface ship as early as 1941.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9 posts
5,943 battles
15 hours ago, Helstrem said:

In 1945 it took full strike packages from seven American carriers hours to sink a single battleship with flawed AA and little escort and yet people make it sound as if a single flight from a CV attacking a surface ship doomed that surface ship as early as 1941.

You prove my point!  How much damage did the BB do to the CVs?  NONE!  Not being able to effectively fight back at the CV itself makes for great strategic advantage (for the CV), but it makes for poor GAMEPLAY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,051
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,547 posts
4,943 battles
9 hours ago, DredPieratRobert said:

You prove my point!  How much damage did the BB do to the CVs?  NONE!  Not being able to effectively fight back at the CV itself makes for great strategic advantage (for the CV), but it makes for poor GAMEPLAY.

You miss my point.  Had that same BB been attacked by aircraft in 1941 it almost certainly would not have been sunk.  Yes, CVs made BBs obsolete in some roles and in theaters where the CVs could operate without being attacked.  CVs in the Mediterranean could not do so and BBs there remained potent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,478 posts
3,183 battles

 Maybe im just that good (my stats say otherwise)

 But  CVs are 

1 better now than they were. The skill floor is lower making them Actually  playble for those who arnt multitasking experts

2  the skill ceailing is also lower meaning   CVs  who are good at veing CVs dont completely  stomp everyone  else.

 

3  in most games, a mild annoyance.  At worst,  deadly  and persistent  vultures.

 

 Granted i dont play DDs at all  and it seems like DD play is not good in the current meta. So i might be missing somthing, but   considering  the wide spread complaining, im  thinking people just hate thar CVs are more common now, even if they are weaker overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,827
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
14,732 posts
On 7/22/2020 at 8:43 PM, BrushWolf said:

I don't understand this either. I am not much of a DD player so for me where I have issue with CV's is the 3, 4, and some 5 ships with no or truly useless AA. Give me a ship with useful AA, strong enough that while the CV may get an attack off they will lose planes making follow up attacks more dodgy for them.

The rage we keep seeing isn't about AA, so while fixing AA across the board would fix the real problem (and I want AA fixed)... it wouldn't alleviate the rage.

The rage is about CVs breaking the precious vision exploit meta that some have mastered.  They can't stealth-torp, they can't linger at the edge of their spotting range trying to sucker someone else into making the first "mistake", they can't combine an unseen spotter and a ship with blocked LOS to shoot at someone who can't shoot back, etc.  And it's ironic, given how one of the main accusations tossed at CVs is that they can "strike without being hit back" -- maybe it's a case of the CV beating at their own game without even having to master the flaws in the spotting system to do it.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,827
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
14,732 posts
On 7/23/2020 at 4:59 PM, Helstrem said:

That is not an accurate assessment of aircraft carriers before and during WWII.  People greatly exaggerate the effectiveness of aircraft carriers, often applying mid 1945 Pacific war carrier effectiveness to all theaters and for the entire war.  Going so far as to think the pre-war admirals were stupid not to have seen carriers as the direction to go.

In 1945 it took full strike packages from seven American carriers hours to sink a single battleship with flawed AA and little escort and yet people make it sound as if a single flight from a CV attacking a surface ship doomed that surface ship as early as 1941.

Yeap.

People mistake the situation at the end of the war, or even post-war, for the entirety of ~1938 onward, somehow. 

Sometimes I wonder if it has to do with a desperate lucky torpedo hit (out of many torpedoes dropped) on a certain big German ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×