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

Why we rant at a WIP ship.

68 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

569
[T-R-F]
Banned
677 posts
19,142 battles

Okay the US BB Split line is now in testing..and no change from when they were announced.

 

as they are. Slow, weak armor, slow reload, and not accurate guns. the only pro is the potential damage . if and that's IF they hit. This was pointed out at the annoucement and in the weeks since no change, and they are in testing.

 

so all you WG apologist would kept saying WIP WIP just wait. well WE AREN'T SEEING ANY CHANGES!

These ships should have never been announced with these stats much less go to testing. Seriously did not one person in their staff saw these stats and say. way too many cons vs pros. fix this before the players see this?

 

It's rumored that the Italian BB line is being delayed because of issues with the semi AP at BB size guns. WHY CAN'T YOU DO THIS FOR OTHER LINES!? WG yo uare literallyu paid to work on these ships yet this is the work we get?

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,540
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,524 posts
6,405 battles

.....

They just entered widespread testing.  Now is the start position.

Why would you expect changes before they were tested?

The key thing is to see changes before they go into early access and that is yet to be determined.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
755 posts
5,299 battles
1 hour ago, AdmiralQ said:

Okay the US BB Split line is now in testing..and no change from when they were announced.

 

as they are. Slow, weak armor, slow reload, and not accurate guns. the only pro is the potential damage . if and that's IF they hit. This was pointed out at the annoucement and in the weeks since no change, and they are in testing.

 

so all you WG apologist would kept saying WIP WIP just wait. well WE AREN'T SEEING ANY CHANGES!

These ships should have never been announced with these stats much less go to testing. Seriously did not one person in their staff saw these stats and say. way too many cons vs pros. fix this before the players see this?

 

It's rumored that the Italian BB line is being delayed because of issues with the semi AP at BB size guns. WHY CAN'T YOU DO THIS FOR OTHER LINES!? WG yo uare literallyu paid to work on these ships yet this is the work we get?

So you are mad they JUST hit testing and NO changes made...you are 5 different kinds of angry aren't you?

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
378
[TDR]
[TDR]
Members
1,200 posts
12,829 battles
2 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

.....

They just entered widespread testing.  Now is the start position.

Why would you expect changes before they were tested?

The key thing is to see changes before they go into early access and that is yet to be determined.

This. Why would they change what was initially announced with no performance information to suggest otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,008
[JEDI-]
Members
2,684 posts
6,903 battles

Last two days i've bagged a Kansas and a Vermont.

Slow damage soaking sponges. 

They don't seem threatening at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,072
[DDMAF]
Members
2,897 posts
16,444 battles

They absolutely LOVE being constantly on fire.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
569
[T-R-F]
Banned
677 posts
19,142 battles
12 minutes ago, Battleship_Constitution said:

So you are mad they JUST hit testing and NO changes made...you are 5 different kinds of stupid aren't you?

 

 

12 minutes ago, Battleship_Constitution said:

So you are mad they JUST hit testing and NO changes made...you are 5 different kinds of stupid aren't you?

 

because from announcement alot of people noted issues with what was announced. you think they make some changes to address those issues. Some things don't need testing to see they bad. I point to WG's WOT Rubicon update. that had so much backlash they didn't need to test before canning that patch. They had weeks of people addressing issues they saw from what was revealed. Now in testing no even minor change from feedback on announcement. who wants to bet they will release fully with no real change?

  • Cool 1
  • Haha 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
755 posts
5,299 battles
1 hour ago, AdmiralQ said:

 

because from announcement alot of people noted issues with what was announced. you think they make some changes to address those issues. Some things don't need testing to see they bad. I point to WG's WOT Rubicon update. that had so much backlash they didn't need to test before canning that patch. They had weeks of people addressing issues they saw from what was revealed. Now in testing no even minor change from feedback on announcement. who wants to bet they will release fully with no real change?

AND? So some people stated how they did not like a ship WELL befor testing......No data, just opinion. Again....i retract my statement of 5 kinds of angry and make it 6 kinds.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,107
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,840 battles
42 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Why would you expect changes before they were tested?

History of other ships in the game. Common sense. Opinions of everyone who has looked at their stats. All it takes is listening.

  • Cool 5
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
569
[T-R-F]
Banned
677 posts
19,142 battles
3 minutes ago, Battleship_Constitution said:

AND? So some people stated how they did not like a ship WELL befor testing......No data, just opinion. Again....i retract my statement of 5 kinds of stupid and make it 6 kinds.

we can get a good idea from stats. again. the ships are slow, featuring the biggest issue people have with Colorado. also the horse power is crap so it takes forever to get to that speed and any turn will kill that speed.  It has insanely slow reload, slowest in the game. add in the bad accuracy then you are going to miss alot. we see this with Georgia, Gneasienau, and the Super Yammy but they have better reloads. so yes if you hit it can hurt. but the key word is IF. then the low armor means all the HE spammers are going to have fun with these ships. another big issue in the game. 

 

We have a line that can't run. can't tank so can't push, and with that accuracy you can't snipe from range for your shells will likely miss and with that reload that will be frustrating when you miss all or most of your shots. this line has only one pro. hitting power but they hotting power is based on RNG and the line has low accuracy. so as is why should anyone play this line?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,540
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,524 posts
6,405 battles
Just now, Umikami said:

History of other ships in the game. Common sense. Opinions of everyone who has looked at their stats. All it takes is listening.

I have grave concerns about their viability and I don't expect much to change, if anything, but the OP's complaint that nothing had changed between announcement and initial widespread testing is silly.  Hopefully changes are made because as it is, even if they produce "balanced" numbers, they look like a dreadful game play experience.  Slow is OK.  Huge is OK.  Squishy is OK.  Slow, huge and squishy is not OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
569
[T-R-F]
Banned
677 posts
19,142 battles
3 minutes ago, Umikami said:

History of other ships in the game. Common sense. Opinions of everyone who has looked at their stats. All it takes is listening.

THANK YOU!

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
322
[TOG]
Members
231 posts
11,528 battles

They look like WG are providing giant stupid damage pinatas for CV's to farm and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

So, don't worry be happy now ;).

Edited by BCGrog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[STURM]
Members
737 posts
6,194 battles

People like the OP are the reason we had to get stuck with the new NDA policy.

Can I just remind people that ships like the Massachusetts and the Imperator Nikolai were called weak and not worth it when first announced because people only looked at their stats? Except when they released they turned out to be quite powerful?

Or that people still call Odin under-powered based on one single stat, despite her pulling in a 52% win rate over the past week?

Ships are more and less than what the simple stats show. If only there was some way to figure that out so they could balance the ships before they release ...

Oh, wait, it's called TESTING.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
532
[CUTE]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
2,048 posts
11,490 battles
43 minutes ago, xalmgrey said:

Last two days i've bagged a Kansas and a Vermont.

Slow damage soaking sponges. 

They don't seem threatening at all.

This is the one thing about testing on the live server is that people will go out of there way to kill a test ship. :cap_rambo:

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
569
[T-R-F]
Banned
677 posts
19,142 battles
2 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

I have grave concerns about their viability and I don't expect much to change, if anything, but the OP's complaint that nothing had changed between announcement and initial widespread testing is silly.  Hopefully changes are made because as it is, even if they produce "balanced" numbers, they look like a dreadful game play experience.  Slow is OK.  Huge is OK.  Squishy is OK.  Slow, huge and squishy is not OK.

thus why are even announced that way. if we the players can catch this issue. why not the devs? They have had weeks of feedback on that announcement. more then enough time to make some changes as a result of reaction to the ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
569
[T-R-F]
Banned
677 posts
19,142 battles
1 minute ago, Muninn77 said:

People like the OP are the reason we had to get stuck with the new NDA policy.

Can I just remind people that ships like the Massachusetts and the Imperator Nikolai were called weak and not worth it when first announced because people only looked at their stats? Except when they released they turned out to be quite powerful?

Or that people still call Odin under-powered based on one single stat, despite her pulling in a 52% win rate over the past week?

Ships are more and less than what the simple stats show. If only there was some way to figure that out so they could balance the ships before they release ...

Oh, wait, it's called TESTING.

 

some things you don't need to test to no it's bad. again  just on stats there are alot of cons and one iffy pro.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,107
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,840 battles
2 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

I have grave concerns about their viability and I don't expect much to change, if anything, but the OP's complaint that nothing had changed between announcement and initial widespread testing is silly. 

While there is truth here, wouldn't there also be truth in saying anyone familiar with the game should know better than to even recommend ships like this? Maybe things haven't had enough time for changes to occur, and maybe some of the things needing to be changed should never have made it this far.

5 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Hopefully changes are made because as it is, even if they produce "balanced" numbers, they look like a dreadful game play experience.  Slow is OK.  Huge is OK.  Squishy is OK.  Slow, huge and squishy is not OK.

Absolutely correct, and what should have been, in my opinion, noticed and corrected before the ships, and their stats, were announced. @Muninn77 is right about this being one of the reasons the NDA stuff was changed, as these stats should NEVER have been made public before testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,008
[JEDI-]
Members
2,684 posts
6,903 battles
3 minutes ago, Shigure_DD said:

This is the one thing about testing on the live server is that people will go out of there way to kill a test ship. :cap_rambo:

The funny thing is i didn't have to go out of my way. They just happened naturally. I didn't have to seek them out. 

Just a happy coincidence for me i guess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,942
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,330 posts
14,924 battles
58 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

.....

They just entered widespread testing.  Now is the start position.

Why would you expect changes before they were tested?

The key thing is to see changes before they go into early access and that is yet to be determined.

This, they are at the beginning of what I guess is going to be a fairly long period of testing with lots of changes along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,107
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,840 battles
11 minutes ago, BCGrog said:

They look like WG are providing giant stupid damage pinatas for CV's to farm and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

I have a very different opinion on that. You'll notice the recent, and somewhat non-stop, complaints over Halland recently. I'm just as sure WG noticed it, and the positive comments many non-CV drivers have littered the Forum with when speaking about this ship.

My prediction? That, very soon, you are going to see a number of premium DDs being offered with Halland level AA. Think they'll sell fast?

Halland isn't being nerfed; it's being COPIED! Everyone be sure to buy those premium CVs quickly, you'll have a limited time to enjoy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,376
[HINON]
Members
14,212 posts
13 minutes ago, AdmiralQ said:

add in the bad accuracy then you are going to miss alot. we see this with Georgia 

LOL wut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×