Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
anonym_dwPXzz2asd6M

WG reaction to Dutch airstrike controversy

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
682 posts

"So, I'm gathering that you guys are anticipating a nerf. I have seen some people suggest a damage nerf and other people suggest making it a consumable. How would you like to see these ships balanced?

Personally, I think it's super satisfying to me to see a camping ship get completely exploded >:D

But some people just like to watch the world burn (or ships sink)"

Link to original thread from WOWS Asia forum https://forum.worldofwarships.asia/topic/50678-dutch-airstrike-in-action/

66idea9p8d171.png

Edited by anonym_dwPXzz2asd6M
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,778
[D-DAY]
Members
7,523 posts
5 minutes ago, OuijaApologist said:

66idea9p8d171.png

Unsure of the thread this post came from, and other input that was made on the thread.

However, reading the post it looks like a general question by @Mademoisailregarding what people see as balance for the ships - Then giving her personal opinion (even then, it looks to be a light hearted comment/joke with the XD after it?).

 

I thought you were giving a proper WG release statement.

Edited by _WaveRider_
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,359
[FOXY]
Members
4,717 posts
8,947 battles
Just now, _WaveRider_ said:

Unsure of the thread this post came from, and other input that was made on the thread.

However, reading the post it looks like a general question regarding what people see as balance for the ships - Then giving her personal opinion (even then, it looks to be a light hearted comment with the XD after it?).

 

I thought you were giving a proper WG release statement.

its a >:D by the way.

No clue where it came from either so im taking it with a grain of salt.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
682 posts
3 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Unsure of the thread this post came from, and other input that was made on the thread.

However, reading the post it looks like a general question regarding what people see as balance for the ships - Then giving her personal opinion (even then, it looks to be a light hearted comment with the XD after it?).

 

I thought you were giving a proper WG release statement.

Asking how would you like to see these ships balanced makes it more than just a personal opinion. 

Edited by anonym_dwPXzz2asd6M
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,778
[D-DAY]
Members
7,523 posts
Just now, Princess_Daystar said:

its a >:D by the way.

No clue where it came from either so im taking it with a grain of salt.

:Smile_teethhappy: My eyesight is terrible!

Then again, if I could actually see half of what I'm doing I'm sure that it would only serve to stress me out more! :Smile_teethhappy:

 

Now I have to go and find out what >:D means!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,359
[FOXY]
Members
4,717 posts
8,947 battles
1 minute ago, OuijaApologist said:

Asking how would you like to see these ships balanced makes it more than just a personal opinion. 

Wouldnt that be a good question to ask? Im assuming this is posted in the testing forums. Like..If they wanted the testers opinions on what would make the ship balanced thatd be one way to phrase it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,778
[D-DAY]
Members
7,523 posts
15 minutes ago, OuijaApologist said:

Asking how would you like to see these ships balanced makes it more than just a personal opinion. 

Yes, I believe I stated it was a question and personal opinion:

18 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

However, reading the post it looks like a general question by @Mademoisailregarding what people see as balance for the ships - Then giving her personal opinion (even then, it looks to be a light hearted comment/joke with the XD after it?).

But how do you get from a person asking a question and giving their personal take on it to "WG reaction to Dutch airstrike controversy"?

It just looks like a question posed to the people on that thread, and a personal opinion. I know Mademoisail is connected to WG, but to equate the post to an official 'WarGaming' take on the situation is a bit of a stretch.

 

I think the 'in my personal opinion' statement, tends to indicate the thoughts are her own.

Edited by _WaveRider_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,297
[FORM]
Members
2,986 posts
15,442 battles
28 minutes ago, OuijaApologist said:

"Personally, I think it's super satisfying to me to see a camping ship get completely exploded x D"

A bit misleading with subject line there OuijaApologist... got a link to the original remark? I'd like to throw my two cents in there if WG is actually listening.

Clearly this thing needs to be balanced, and while I think the idea of being able to push camping ships out is good - being able to delete BBs while out of detection range is just absurd. Especially two minutes into a game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,650 posts
1,608 battles

The problem is, the game is - to a large degree - designed around camping. The maps, the gameplay (the reverse on a dime ship control), the ludicrous bow tanking - they're all a) immensely unrealistic, b) do nothing but encourage static/sluggish play, and c) are enormously reflective of World of Tanks.

This is the price Wargaming pays for building a ship game on a tank game template: stupid, plodding, campy play that isn't reflective of real ship behavior. And adding this dumb 'death from above' mechanic isn't going to suddenly flip that on its head. The penalties for playing recklessly are simply too great.

  • Cool 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,359
[FOXY]
Members
4,717 posts
8,947 battles
3 minutes ago, AviationCruiser_Mogami said:

The problem is, the game is - to a large degree - designed around camping. The maps, the gameplay (the reverse on a dime ship control), the ludicrous bow tanking - they're all a) immensely unrealistic, b) do nothing but encourage static/sluggish play, and c) are enormously reflective of World of Tanks.

This is the price Wargaming pays for building a ship game on a tank game template: stupid, plodding, campy play that isn't reflective of real ship behavior. And adding this dumb 'death from above' mechanic isn't going to suddenly flip that on its head. The penalties for playing recklessly are simply too great.

Yup! this is pretty much it.

Ive said it elsewhere, they want to change the island camping meta without fixing the reasons why people camp behind islands.

I dont mind the maps having cover etc, ocean is one of my least favorites honestly, but they need more variety in map layouts. Its not a historical simulator, so i expect the game to behave in some way like a FPS, which means cover is a part in that.

If implemented at any levels at all like it is all i see it doing is making players sit in the back more, and its going to harm cruiser gameplay, which is already one of the least forgiving classes(If forced to be in open water, on the move, at all times).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
160 posts
21 battles
44 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Unsure of the thread this post came from, and other input that was made on the thread.

However, reading the post it looks like a general question by @Mademoisailregarding what people see as balance for the ships - Then giving her personal opinion (even then, it looks to be a light hearted comment/joke with the XD after it?).

 

I thought you were giving a proper WG release statement.

It's from the Asia forums. Archived here to prevent any chicancery.

https://archive.is/baCu3

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,778
[D-DAY]
Members
7,523 posts
7 minutes ago, leops_1984 said:

It's from the Asia forums. Archived here to prevent any chicancery.

https://archive.is/baCu3

Thank you.

I think the title used by the OP sensationalises what is a question and personal opinion by an individual - not a link to an a 'WG' official reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
160 posts
21 battles
3 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Thank you.

I think the title used by the OP sensationalises what is a question and personal opinion by an individual - not a link to an a 'WG' official reaction.

When you are employed by a company explicitly as a community manager, you do not have a "personal opinion". Anything you say or do related to the game - especially an an official forum - is, implicitly, a company opinion. You represent the company at all times in community affairs, and you should at the least think about how such statements will be perceived. Right now, all I can see is: internally, they do not give a damn about balancing it.

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
802
[CHA0S]
Members
621 posts
6,082 battles
1 hour ago, OuijaApologist said:

"So, I'm gathering that you guys are anticipating a nerf. I have seen some people suggest a damage nerf and other people suggest making it a consumable. How would you like to see these ships balanced?

Personally, I think it's super satisfying to me to see a camping ship get completely exploded >:D

But some people just like to watch the world burn (or ships sink)"

Link to original thread from WOWS Asia forum https://forum.worldofwarships.asia/topic/50678-dutch-airstrike-in-action/

66idea9p8d171.png

image.png.5519ebacb42c3006bb8e67921d9d9a1a.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,359
[FOXY]
Members
4,717 posts
8,947 battles
11 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Thank you.

I think the title used by the OP sensationalises what is a question and personal opinion by an individual - not a link to an a 'WG' official reaction.

Reading that comment about the wooster being good at open water was a laugh though..i love seeing light cruisers out of cover. Citadels omnom.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,778
[D-DAY]
Members
7,523 posts
1 minute ago, leops_1984 said:

When you are employed by a company explicitly as a community manager, you do not have a "personal opinion". Anything you say or do related to the game - especially an an official forum - is, implicitly, a company opinion. You represent the company at all times in community affairs, and you should at the least think about how such statements will be perceived. Right now, all I can see is: internally, they do not give a damn about balancing it.

Of course a person can have a personal opinion, what an absurd statement!

There is nothing to state this is a WG official take on the situation - in fact she states 'Personally' - as in 'personal to what she thinks'. 

 

It is a big leap and that leap is more to  to do with people trying to find some kind of scandal as opposed to their actually being any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,325
[KWF]
Members
6,767 posts
7,444 battles

Dunno, Sail's work, as is Hapas, is to moderate and engage with the community. They are indeed part of the company and often the first WG employees that make contact with forums, but that doesn't mean they represent the company as a whole, nor are they infallible. 

What it looked like to me is that she was using a bit of a cringey response to get some responses from the players, which could then be communicated along the hierarchy as a first indicator of community opinion. 

Did it come out in a wrong way? Maybe. Is this WG's  official stance on the subject? Hardly. And I'm saying this as someone absolutely not liking airstrikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
766
[NSEW]
Members
2,851 posts
12,179 battles

WG please give me the FXP to skip to Tier 10 for the ultimate prize of the month (the dutch CV cruiser).  I shall test it in live server with no divs. I promise.

I shall await for the incredible Super Container that never seems to arrive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,948 posts
94 battles

The picture OP shows is a reply found in the second page of a discussion thread in Asia forums about the Dutch cruiser's airstrike. 

Also, note that the staff said "PERSONALLY". In no way the words he/she is saying is representative of the devs' views as a whole.

What I see here is sensationalist journalism intended to raise torches and pitchforks.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
491 posts
10,442 battles

I like seeing camping ships blow up. But that's CV's work right?

 

 

Oh wait! CVs are more concerned about the ships in the front! DDs! Lul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,521
[HINON]
Members
14,340 posts

Ah rabbit is trolling with his alt using clickbaity titles and ignoring context. Nothing new here. 

Saying someone personally likes to see a camping ship explode is no surprise. I think most players like seeing an enemy camping ship die. Whether this airstrike mechanic is balanced or good for the game is debatable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,002 posts
8,620 battles

There is a big difference between Island camping near cap providing support to a DD and camping in spawn.   These dutch cruisers basically make Islands not relevant anymore.  So why have islands at all. These cruisers are just going to cause more spawn camping.  War-gaming really needs to create ship lines and skills that encourage pushing up and supporting DDs. 

Edited by Rothgar_57
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,332
[SALVO]
Members
14,491 posts
9,270 battles
2 hours ago, OuijaApologist said:

Asking how would you like to see these ships balanced makes it more than just a personal opinion. 

@Mademoisail always ask stuff like that, call it "intelligence gathering" :fish_book:.

Don't extrapolate what's clearly a question and funny comment.

Answering that question, I think the problem can be addressed by reducing the number of charges (3 to 2) and using a cooldown period. Maybe lowering the alpha a bit in the Golden Lewd.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,860
[SALVO]
Members
3,898 posts
7,842 battles
1 hour ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Thank you.

I think the title used by the OP sensationalises what is a question and personal opinion by an individual - not a link to an a 'WG' official reaction.

Yeah the title of the thread has gone too far. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×