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

ZF-2 AND Z-31 Designs

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,135
[INTEL]
Members
3,413 posts
18,863 battles

WG published a Dev Blog on the design of these two ships that speaks directly to the design decisions they made.  While there are a lot of historical ships that were built that can be modeled and put in the game, I'm one that doesn't believe that must be done before introducing ships that didn't sail.  I'm all for the former getting into the game, but I'm not bothered by the latter unless it's just something ridiculous or it really messes with the game balance.  We can argue those individually as they come.  And that's why I'm commenting on this.  The Dev Blog presents their design decisions and I'm happy to see that they saw fit to publish this.

So @Hapa_Fodder, please pass my encouragement up to the Devs to continue these kinds of communications.  I expect it might generate some angst in the player population but I think this kind of conversation is interesting to the community as a whole.

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/115

 

 

 

Edited by ThisIsClassic
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,746
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,494 posts
14,963 battles
58 minutes ago, ThisIsClassic said:

WG published a Dev Blog on the design of these two ships that speaks directly to the design decisions they made.  While there are a lot of historical ships that were built that can be modeled and put in the game, I'm one that doesn't believe that must be done before introducing ships that didn't sail.  I'm all for the former getting into the game, but I'm not bothered by the latter unless it's just something ridiculous or it really messes with the game balance.  We can argue those individually as they come.  And that's why I'm commenting on this.  The Dev Blog presents there design decisions and I'm happy to see that they saw fit to publish this.

So @Hapa_Fodder, please pass my encouragement up to the Devs to continue these kinds of communications.  I expect it might generate some angst in the player population but I think this kind of conversation is interesting to the community as a whole.

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/115

 

 

 

Aloha,

Thank you for the kind words! I will be sure to pass this along!

Mahalo,

-Hapa

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
166 posts
18,778 battles

I would love to see these destroyers with hard penetrating guns on the AP. as the ability to  cit a des moines, zao, and so on from 12km or closer. Kind of like how the new Russian 180mm can pen really well. This way your more of an anti cruiser destroyer. You get on the flank of a cruiser and fire 1 or 2 salvos then go dark. Before they hopefully can turn their guns to you. Strong enough guns to be a threat but weak enough defense so that you can't constantly fire your guns like a khab(speed/armor/heal) or kleber(speed/reduce damage taken)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19,046 posts
7,143 battles
23 hours ago, ThisIsClassic said:

WG published a Dev Blog on the design of these two ships that speaks directly to the design decisions they made.  While there are a lot of historical ships that were built that can be modeled and put in the game, I'm one that doesn't believe that must be done before introducing ships that didn't sail.  I'm all for the former getting into the game, but I'm not bothered by the latter unless it's just something ridiculous or it really messes with the game balance.  We can argue those individually as they come.  And that's why I'm commenting on this.  The Dev Blog presents their design decisions and I'm happy to see that they saw fit to publish this.

So @Hapa_Fodder, please pass my encouragement up to the Devs to continue these kinds of communications.  I expect it might generate some angst in the player population but I think this kind of conversation is interesting to the community as a whole.

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/115

 

 

 

I have a lot of words for their new line. Very few of them positive. There are so many issues from both a historical and gameplay perspective, and I'm not particularly fond of what they've done.

I hope I can elaborate on this soon and I will see you there along with many others. Based on my rate of progress this will likely be up sometime next week. So much to do, so many duty days to interfere with my plans.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,135
[INTEL]
Members
3,413 posts
18,863 battles
1 hour ago, _Sarcasticat_ said:

I have a lot of words for their new line. Very few of them positive. There are so many issues from both a historical and gameplay perspective, and I'm not particularly fond of what they've done.

I hope I can elaborate on this soon and I will see you there along with many others. Based on my rate of progress this will likely be up sometime next week. So much to do, so many duty days to interfere with my plans.

Looking foreword to it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
972
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
4,172 posts
12,736 battles

If you guys are basing built ships to their historical designs, why are Iowa's AA configurations so far off? All three hulls represent neither ship and the C-hull is missing most of her bow mounted AA. Neither hull has B-turret AA mounts; which should be Oerlikons at the least (Iowa) or bofors if New Jersey or Wisconsin.

I fond it disturbing that historical ships continue to be maintained with less RoF and AA than paper ships/upgrades that not only get excessive speeds but armaments as well. It's relatively obvious. It's not like AA buffs for Iowa would cause a game imbalance in the present or future.

Edited by Crokodone
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,746
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,494 posts
14,963 battles
On 1/30/2021 at 7:25 AM, _Sarcasticat_ said:

I have a lot of words for their new line. Very few of them positive. There are so many issues from both a historical and gameplay perspective, and I'm not particularly fond of what they've done.

I hope I can elaborate on this soon and I will see you there along with many others. Based on my rate of progress this will likely be up sometime next week. So much to do, so many duty days to interfere with my plans.

Considering they haven't even gone into testing yet, not sure how you can just automatically decide its bad.

The EU DDs and French DDs both were this way and both lines turned out really fun.

-Hapa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19,046 posts
7,143 battles
2 hours ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

Considering they haven't even gone into testing yet, not sure how you can just automatically decide its bad.

The EU DDs and French DDs both were this way and both lines turned out really fun.

-Hapa

I'll have to explain in full, I'm not one to leave myself vulnerable by hastily explaining only a portion of the issue - especially not here. Gotta get the big picture, right? Gotta make a sharp image too; no use in having a big picture if it's blurry.

Buuuut it'll take some time, as all well-thought arguments should. Gotta break it apart, into the fine detail so that it may be examined, compared, and then annihilated via verbage. Perhaps even better ideas may suggested. Not all ideas are born equal.

I am, of course, very much aware of the state of testing as all things go through (to varying degrees, with equally varying degrees of success) and a major change has, as we know, happened to ZF2. Probably in light of the unexpected backlash (I wonder who might have been the originating source of that, I wonder?), or maybe the change was simply the result of the quote to follow. Though it appears ZF2 (now ZF6) has taken a step further away from reality and closer to "How high can we push this thing so that we can make more money off of it?" - which of course, being in the tier 9 or 10 range means that it will go on sale or be available for a variety of resources which in turn are typically expensive to obtain immediately (conversion of FXP and coal from crates being the prime examples). One might not pay the entire cost of Coal/FXP but may expedite the process via the aforementioned methods which still brings in money while also filling the "endgame content" requirement. I'm going to stop this train of thought now before it gets too far, but just know that the German DD's could be much, much better and a lot less hated by both your historical community and those of us more knowledgeable with statistics to realize the inconsistencies and full extent of the usefulness these destroyers have. But if ZF2/ZF6 is anything to go by (along with WarGaming's longstanding record across all its titles) I do not hold hope that this line will improve...correctly (even I know this is a relative sentiment and I cannot hide that). What I and (upon discussion) others define as "correct", as hinted, will be explored somewhere else and at a later date. As someone who creates premium proposals, I've noticed the bar is quite low to strike an initial balance better than that of WarGaming. 

I hope to see you when I roll out this thread I've been dangling around. So unfortunate that I'm on a time crunch because of the announcement of this line; it was meant to be so much greater. 

tldr passionate about the topic, sensible enough to realize that there are better routes, big thread soon:tm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×