Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
godzilla5549

BB Community Whines About Something == Gets Changed

201 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

Once again, we have it proven that all the BB community has to do to change something is whine enough and spam enough topics on the forums.

 

Good job BB players. You have won yet again. We really are playing World of Battleships.

  • Cool 26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,262
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,723 posts
26,569 battles

Correlation =/= causality.

  • Cool 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,399
[BLNCE]
Members
13,459 posts
44,054 battles

That is not what happened. No "whining" occurred. Rather, lots of experienced players argued, correctly, that changing the bow armor would not fix the high tier camping meta. WG then discovered that the bow changes weren't getting ships killed at the rate they'd hoped for, because, again as many players argued, the bow changes made camping even more urgent.

 

No "whining" occurred. Sad that you have to mischaracterize lots of cogent and correct argument that way. 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
802 posts
2,757 battles

The BB armor change wasn't going to affect any game play besides between battleships.


What difference is it to you if the proposed change is reverted?  It's not like you were suddenly going to have the ability to citadel BBs through the bow in your CA or CL.

 

BBs players should've been the ones to voice their opinions about a change affecting only BBs.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,043
[SALTY]
Members
8,930 posts
18,138 battles

That is not what happened. No "whining" occurred. Rather, lots of experienced players argued, correctly, that changing the bow armor would not fix the high tier camping meta. WG then discovered that the bow changes weren't getting ships killed at the rate they'd hoped for, because, again as many players argued, the bow changes made camping even more urgent.

 

No "whining" occurred. Sad that you have to mischaracterize lots of cogent and correct argument that way. 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a perfect response.  I couldn't have put it better myself.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,622
[-KIA-]
Senior Volunteer Moderator, Beta Testers, Supertester, Privateers, Senior Volunteer Moderator
6,550 posts
8,491 battles

Were the bow changes retracted!?!?!?!

 

IF SO, PARTY HARD!

40239_party_hard_gif_io_SN.gif

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,494 posts
12,756 battles

Once again, we have it proven that all the BB community has to do to change something is whine enough and spam enough topics on the forums.

 

Good job BB players. You have won yet again. We really are playing World of Battleships.

 

So no where in your thinking does the possibility exist that WG realized that the bow armor changes were not going to work as intended?
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46
[WBLDG]
Beta Testers
373 posts
4,121 battles

So now we're complaining that WG responds to community concerns when they're not from your particular community?

 

Pretty petty.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WG Staff
298 posts
4 battles

As a person who is responsible for update analysis, I can assure you - this is not the case.

There is a better way to reach the desired effect, without causing more BB sniping AND without global nerfs/ups. We will do our best :honoring:

  • Cool 47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[SINK]
Members
712 posts
3,648 battles

Once again, we have it proven that all the BB community has to do to change something is whine enough and spam enough topics on the forums.

 

Good job BB players. You have won yet again. We really are playing World of Battleships.

 

It's not world of battleships.

It's World of Campers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,128 posts
7,268 battles

The BB armor change wasn't going to affect any game play besides between battleships.

 

What difference is it to you if the proposed change is reverted?  It's not like you were suddenly going to have the ability to citadel BBs through the bow in your CA or CL.

 

BBs players should've been the ones to voice their opinions about a change affecting only BBs.

 

If BB's die faster, CA's would live longer. If BB's actually damaged each other, they might actually take shots at each other instead of looking for the any CA to insta-delete. It would very much change gameplay for everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,255 posts

As a person who is responsible for update analysis, I can assure you - this is not the case.

There is a better way to reach the desired effect, without causing more BB sniping AND without global nerfs/ups. We will do our best :honoring:

 

Care to speculate what that might be? Since you said before that the other idea's were way worse then the bow nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

As a person who is responsible for update analysis, I can assure you - this is not the case.

There is a better way to reach the desired effect, without causing more BB sniping AND without global nerfs/ups. We will do our best :honoring:

 

I sincrerely hope that whatever new solution you come up with is a really good one.
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,090 battles

 

I sincrerely hope that whatever new solution you come up with is a really good one.

 

For once you and I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,366
[-K-]
Members, Beta Testers
3,105 posts
10,282 battles

Or perhaps WG has a group of people that test changes before they happen, and they're listening to the feedback about the overall impact on the game that this change would have had.  Hmmmmm.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,719 posts
4,106 battles

If anything front tanking may decrease camping if people were willing to stick their nose out and try to tank a rush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
310 posts
2,647 battles

Once again, we have it proven that all the BB community has to do to change something is whine enough and spam enough topics on the forums.

 

Good job BB players. You have won yet again. We really are playing World of Battleships.

Oh stop. It wasnt broken in the first place. 

If your statement is true then the same goes for when other 'groups' whine and changes are supposedly made in their favor.

 The change is stupid. And if its all the same its still in PTS. So your cry post is not only in the wrong place it is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
802 posts
2,757 battles

 

If BB's die faster, CA's would live longer. If BB's actually damaged each other, they might actually take shots at each other instead of looking for the any CA to insta-delete. It would very much change gameplay for everyone else.

 

If BBs didn't exist at all, the same would also be true.  What you're saying is, they should delete each other faster so as to not be a problem for anyone else.  

 

That's just not how it works, and apparently WG agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,494 posts
12,756 battles

 

I sincrerely hope that whatever new solution you come up with is a really good one.

 

Just curious (and I'm seriously not trolling but wanting to understand a different perspective from someone who obviously enjoys the game and is very good with all ship types) why do you think that the bow armor nerf was a good idea/why did you support it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
Members
16,315 posts
12,285 battles

KHAB OWNERS UNITE, LEAVE RUSSIAN BIAS ALONE!!!!

 

J/K Will never happen DDs are allowed to get nerf hammered....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
419
[BLNCE]
Members
2,293 posts
7,591 battles

 

If BB's die faster, CA's would live longer. If BB's actually damaged each other, they might actually take shots at each other instead of looking for the any CA to insta-delete. It would very much change gameplay for everyone else.

BB's DO damage each other BUT as long as I can 1 shot a crusier that can spam HE at me if I can see him - I will kill him first. EVERY TIME. The problem - is HE - the problem is DOT - it has always been DOT. Any experienced gamer will tell you. In terms of target priority - you kill high damage low HP targets first. It's common sense really. 

 

The thing about BB's is that they should be a restricted class just like carrier except with maybe 3 max instead of 1 or 2. Cruisers and DD should be the primary classes in this game.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
909 posts

Once again, we have it proven that all the BB community has to do to change something is whine enough and spam enough topics on the forums.

 

Good job BB players. You have won yet again. We really are playing World of Battleships.

 

As I said in another thread:

Not really. What most most people fail to realize is that Wargaming's changes are very data driven. If test data had shown that the changes WERE accomplishing their goals, the players could complain until the heat death of the universe and have no effect. I guarantee there's going to be just as much complaining about the next adjustment that's made to BBs in the next public test. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,622
[-KIA-]
Senior Volunteer Moderator, Beta Testers, Supertester, Privateers, Senior Volunteer Moderator
6,550 posts
8,491 battles

CAs put fires on BBs like no tomorrow.

 

Bow nerf adds possibility for 10k+ on bow each salvo.

 

 

BBs would not last long... the nerf was idiotic to begin with.

Edited by DarthDoge
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×