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

Got to love the 'historical adjustments' to the Wyoming class coming in 4.1

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
1,730 posts
1,193 battles

Yet historical fixes that would help it like I don't know pointed out a LFTA in CBT in this thread.

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/29808-new-york-class-unhistorical-gun-turret-arc-limits/page__pid__798105#entry798105

 

Unaddressed for both the Wyoming and the New York class, not to mention missing scout planes. But hey keep making those fantasy refits of a fictional ship as the counterpart that doesn't even get full modernizations :)

 

And yes, pointless thread is pointless because our feedback is never heard by more then the circular file clerk on this portal.

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
300
[WKY20]
Members
1,313 posts
7,071 battles

WG is concerned with balance but I'd rather have historical accuracy above all.

 

I'd for example prefer Axis Vs. Allied setup. Drawing ships would not be in game. Rather, weaker ships would have cheaper maintenance and running costs.

 

But WG has always preferred arcade approach in their games. War Thunder proved that more realism could probably help with getting more revenue revenue. Many ex WoT players are now hooked on War Thunder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
146
[DSRP]
Beta Testers
748 posts
2,650 battles

I've often wondered if the limited turret arcs are a balancing decision or done to preserve graphical consistency with the ship models.

 

If it's the latter (e.g. New York #3 turret being limited due to other elements of the ship model being in the way of a certain firing angle), it does have some impact on the ship's performance, so that would need to be looked at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
300
[WKY20]
Members
1,313 posts
7,071 battles

World of tanks tried the nation vs nation and it did not go over well when the sovites were mud stomping everyone.

 

Nation against nation is weird why would you do that. Axis Vs Allied would be better. I know it may have some balance issues. But war is never fair. This balance issue can be dealt with in other ways that don't involve playing with the ships' stats.
Edited by LifePilgrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
685
[LLMF]
Alpha Tester
2,536 posts

Slower turrets does not compensate for better gun dispersion and 4 more guns than the IJN counterpart to the Wisconsin... the extra IJN range is near useless as the RNG monster gobbles up any chance of a direct hit on an island at anything less than 8km on the Myogi.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,039
Members
34,409 posts
10,768 battles

But WG has always preferred arcade approach in their games. War Thunder proved that more realism could probably help with getting more revenue revenue. Many ex WoT players are now hooked on War Thunder.

 

Actually, what War Thunder proved is that more realism doesn't automatically make for a better game. Many of those ex-WoT players that went to WT came back....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,319 posts
9,297 battles

New York is a better ship anyway, I don't recall anything special about the Wyoming while I powered my way through it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,039
Members
34,409 posts
10,768 battles

 

Nation against nation is weird why would you do that. Axis Vs Allied would be better. I know it may have some balance issues. But war is never fair. This balance issue can be dealt with in other ways that don't involve playing with the ships' stats.

 

War is never fair, true. But war is also horrible, and when you're in one, you're pretty much deprived of free will and choice. Also, the food tends to suck....

 

Games have to be fun. You can, as you say, balance in other ways, but the more assymetrical you balance, the narrower the audience. If WG went even further towards the direction of balance, they'd likely gain in playerbase size, but they've decided to produce a niche title with the approach they have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,949
[-K--]
Beta Testers
4,829 posts

I played War Thunder, till they broke arcade to realistic ish flight models so i quit.   Game is terrible.. Joysticks dont work worth a crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
642 posts
782 battles

I wondered about how they would mix the various ships (national) up in matches and they simply followed the WOT format. Ignoring the emotional and political aspects that would have been very very toxic to say the least. However, I think that the first thing I thought of was finding a clan with US ships only. In WOT I am an old guy and felt bad about shooting allied tanks much less US tanks. Simple solution was to mix them up and let immersion be emotional attachments to the type, not particularly the national type.

 

Nation vs nation? Negative, do not want to go down that road. I have studied WW2 for about 50 yrs (I am old) and as a US Navy vet I have a number of ships from various nations that stand aside from nationalism that I would like to play. Tirpitz is one, Mushashi is another. I am not considering carriers. I love the old Victorian age broadside warship St. Louis and still like to play her in matches. As far as 'paper' ships are concerned I have no problem with that at all. All navies of consequence have paper ship designs and I wouldn't mind seeing them, particularly the Russian and Italian types. I am pulling for WG to get the clans right and do not yearn for a single nation clan any more. This, for me, is common sense and love of ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,039
Members
34,409 posts
10,768 battles

I played War Thunder, till they broke arcade to realistic ish flight models so i quit.   Game is terrible.. Joysticks dont work worth a crap.

 

That's a shame, I quite enjoy that game. (the planes anyway) Never tried with a joystick though. Figured since you weren't actually flying the plane, so much as telling it where to go with the cursor, mouse & keyboard would be the better choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Members-
6,960 posts
10,623 battles

WG is concerned with balance but I'd rather have historical accuracy above all.

 

I'd for example prefer Axis Vs. Allied setup. Drawing ships would not be in game. Rather, weaker ships would have cheaper maintenance and running costs.

 

But WG has always preferred arcade approach in their games. War Thunder proved that more realism could probably help with getting more revenue revenue. Many ex WoT players are now hooked on War Thunder.

 

War Thunder is fun, but is beginning to cross the line of no return in terms of balance and realism playability.And the horrible devs have no plans of fixing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
537 posts
2,603 battles

I'd for example prefer Axis Vs. Allied setup. Drawing ships would not be in game. Rather, weaker ships would have cheaper maintenance and running costs.

This would be great for USN players. Not so much for anyone else.

 

Furthermore, drawing board ships are half the reason to play these kind of games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×