Navalpride33 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 3 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: Nor should we! The difference is that not everyone comes here to sit in sackcloth and ashes every time a 20 inch-gunned BB slaps their cruiser around. We reap what we sowed. I never wanted bigger guns to out perform the YAMATO. But people are bent on one ship dominating the match but then, get mad when it happens against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethervox Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Welcome to the 'controversy' vol 3. Rigged? Yes, this is Wedgie we are talking about, isn't it? (my humble opinion) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 2 hours ago, Navalpride33 said: We reap what we sowed. I never wanted bigger guns to out perform the YAMATO. But people are bent on one ship dominating the match but then, get mad when it happens against them. I don't recall 'people' asking for that... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yedwy Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) @OP What is drawn at the screen and what server is "seeing" are often not qute identical, just remember all those times one shoots at you even if you are not spotted just to relise you were spotted but it didnt write it for like 10s or so the was most likely more then one hit just the rendered look of the salvo and servevr calcualed stuff went each their own way... Edited March 29 by Yedwy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: I don't recall 'people' asking for that... That's why I'm here to remind you... 😂 Just because YOU dont recall doesn't mean it doesn't happen. All anyone has to do is watch the EU and NA streams... In that block timeframe, there's bond to be players' asking for bigger guns (must cases more AP power). OR Over capable ships (more fire, more spam). Edited March 29 by Navalpride33 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnderTheRadarAgain Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 3 hours ago, Navalpride33 said: That's why I'm here to remind you... 😂 Just because YOU dont recall doesn't mean it doesn't happen. All anyone has to do is watch the EU and NA streams... In that block timeframe, there's bond to be players' asking for bigger guns (must cases more AP power). OR Over capable ships (more fire, more spam). More submarines. And super submarines. I cringe every time I see those words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 2 hours ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said: More submarines. And super submarines. I cringe every time I see those words. I asked for Submarines. And I want an ARP I-401 for my Commander Iona. 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 3 hours ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said: More submarines. And super submarines. I cringe every time I see those words. My fav of the past... MORE PLANES... More Hybrids. The list goes on and on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 6 hours ago, Navalpride33 said: That's why I'm here to remind you... 😂 Just because YOU dont recall doesn't mean it doesn't happen. All anyone has to do is watch the EU and NA streams... In that block timeframe, there's bond to be players' asking for bigger guns (must cases more AP power). OR Over capable ships (more fire, more spam). Our experiences differ. Fine. Of course, many people have demanded a lot of things over the years...no subs, no planes, improvements to spotting...all of which has been ignored by WG staff. Just because people asked for it doesn't make the 'people' responsible for the implementation. That falls squarely on WG staff. Who decided to implement bigger gun ships? WG staff. The idea that WG is prisoner to the will of the customers is absurd. WG staff have the power to make changes to the game. Blaming the customer base is just a propaganda ruse by WG staff to evade responsibilities for unpopular or failed choices on their part. Stop blaming players for things that are WG staff responsibilities. You are being manipulated by WG staff utilizing divide and rule principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Just now, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Of course, many people have demanded a lot of things over the years...no subs, no planes, improvements to spotting...all of which has been ignored by WG staff Incorrect... WG at first, didn't wanted subs (They sent a WOT/historian who had nothing to do with WOWS or WOWS future production/development to say so). WG at first didn't wanted hybrids... In fact, back in 2000s in the old forums... I stated hybrids were coming... I was told it was only a test however... Once word got out.. Over, the player based requested them every single stream. 5 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Who decided to implement bigger gun ships? WG staff. This was after the player base wanted more tiers after tier 10. The purpose was to keep the veteran players busy after they regrind the whole line. WG at the start DO NOT wanted to make ships with bigger tiers.. I took them years to make super ships in the game from the initial concept. 9 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: WG staff have the power to make changes to the game. Blaming the customer base is just a propaganda ruse by WG staff to evade responsibilities for unpopular or failed choices on their part. Stop blaming players for things that are WG staff responsibilities. You are being manipulated by WG staff utilizing divide and rule principles. Correct I do blame WG for listing and bowing down to the players suggestions... Bowing down to public pressure. Not saying WG is innocent (heck no). WG has a lot of scandals. Must of the ideas I mentioned, WERE NOT MEANT to go live.. If you want more examples of the player base making bad ideas WG adapted... Here's an oldie but goodie. Night Battles... This was implemented about 6 months ago after years of the players demanding it... Lasted a few patches and then it was gone. As long as I''m here to call out the mistakes of both WG and the player base... I agree with you, if you dont want me to blame the playerbase... Then THEY should plea the 5th and let WG devs come up with their own ideas... Problem is... I dont understand why we are giving them ideas FOR FREE! 🤣😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: Problem is... I dont understand why we are giving them ideas FOR FREE! 🤣😂 If WG/WOWs thinks they can make money, then the'll happily sell it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 19 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: Incorrect... WG at first, didn't wanted subs (They sent a WOT/historian who had nothing to do with WOWS or WOWS future production/development to say so). WG at first didn't wanted hybrids... In fact, back in 2000s in the old forums... I stated hybrids were coming... I was told it was only a test however... Once word got out.. Over, the player based requested them every single stream. This was after the player base wanted more tiers after tier 10. The purpose was to keep the veteran players busy after they regrind the whole line. WG at the start DO NOT wanted to make ships with bigger tiers.. I took them years to make super ships in the game from the initial concept. Correct I do blame WG for listing and bowing down to the players suggestions... Bowing down to public pressure. Not saying WG is innocent (heck no). WG has a lot of scandals. Must of the ideas I mentioned, WERE NOT MEANT to go live.. If you want more examples of the player base making bad ideas WG adapted... Here's an oldie but goodie. Night Battles... This was implemented about 6 months ago after years of the players demanding it... Lasted a few patches and then it was gone. As long as I''m here to call out the mistakes of both WG and the player base... I agree with you, if you dont want me to blame the playerbase... Then THEY should plea the 5th and let WG devs come up with their own ideas... Problem is... I dont understand why we are giving them ideas FOR FREE! 🤣😂 WG staff have a culture of NOT taking playerbase ideas... The playerbase has no control whatsoever about WG development of the game. It is illogical to assign ANY blame to the customers for WG development decisions...or to be grumpy with other players. ALL of the power resides with WG staff, so ALL of the responsibility lies with WG staff. We need to stop letting WG staff convince us to be angry at each other. It's just old divide and rule tactics. The group solely responsible for submarines, and the awful concealment mechanics, and the proliferation of airplanes without defenses...is WG staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: WG staff have a culture of NOT taking playerbase ideas... The playerbase has no control whatsoever about WG development of the game. It is illogical to assign ANY blame to the customers for WG development decisions...or to be grumpy with other players. ALL of the power resides with WG staff, so ALL of the responsibility lies with WG staff. We need to stop letting WG staff convince us to be angry at each other. It's just old divide and rule tactics. The group solely responsible for submarines, and the awful concealment mechanics, and the proliferation of airplanes without defenses...is WG staff. I beg to differ... WHen the BB complainers were complaining every stream about flooding and torps... WG appeased them. Nerf'd torp DMG (all platforms) AND took away liquidator. Not the mention FIRE was nerf'd as well. (0.8.0 series, the worst series for the game. Which has both WG and players' changes in it.) I already gave you A LOT of examples of the player base asking and getting changes from WG.. WG has bowed down to public pressure... Again, if it were me... I suggest the player base take the 5th.. Let WG come up with their own ideas. STOP giving them any ideas for FREE! 🤣😂 Good night Mr Clark.. Your Bliss/innocence on the topic is my entertainment.. For that I thank you 👽 Edited March 29 by Navalpride33 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said: I beg to differ... WHen the BB complainers were complaining every stream about flooding and torps... WG appeased them. Nerf'd torp DMG (all platforms) AND took away liquidator. Not the mention FIRE was nerf'd as well. (0.8.0 series, the worst series for the game. Which has both WG and players' changes in it.) I already gave you A LOT of examples of the player base asking and getting changes from WG.. WG has bowed down to public pressure... Again, if it were me... I suggest the player base take the 5th.. Let WG come up with their own ideas. STOP giving them any ideas for FREE! 🤣😂 Good night Mr Clark.. Your Bliss/innocence on the topic is my entertainment.. For that I thank you 👽 All choices that WG made of their own free will. We have a much more vocal anti sub and anti plane set of feedback than the ones you are discussing...that WG continues to ignore. If it were me, I'd tell WG staff to stop making excuses and just own their own choices. The playerbase doesn't force WG to do anything. Silencing feedback does nothing for the health of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 2 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: We have a much more vocal anti sub and anti plane set of feedback than the ones you are discussing...that WG continues to ignore. Because it's born of an unspoken but logically very clear agenda to make the DD unicums unstoppable, which would make the game completely unbalanced - and hell for every other ship type. Edited March 29 by Ensign Cthulhu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yedwy Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 15 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: I asked for Submarines. And I want an ARP I-401 for my Commander Iona. 🙂 Naaah I-401 will be T10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WES_HoundDog Posted March 30 Author Share Posted March 30 On 3/28/2024 at 4:45 AM, Navalpride33 said: Rigged? Nothing in WOWS is rigged... Its high tier WOWS play... Where, for years players' want/been asking for better guns more penetration capability. WOWS gave the player based what they asked (although, relentlessly, only conceded to earn the cash). The player's asked and WG delivered... Now, when they get hit with one shell for heavy DMG... Now they dont like what WG have done. Go figure. Huh? I asked for better AA, more Hps and a better fire mechanic. Where the hell are those requests? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) 2 hours ago, WES_HoundDog said: Huh? I asked for better AA, more Hps and a better fire mechanic. Where the hell are those requests? AA.. Well if I remember correctly... Years ago the complainers wanted to nerf AA..They would complain about the same old suspects (the ATL, the De Moines, the ships labeled as no fly ships.). At 0.8.0 series, the old AA was changed in favor of what we have now. An AA mechanic made from those who complained happy, a better question is "who benefited with the AA changes?" CVs Who got the torp in the fantail? Cruisers, American. So to answer you question... If you're not a CV main who WG appeased with the AA change... Your request, was granted as far as WG is concerned.. Issue resolved. The AA issue was done with in accordance with their policy.. That in game policy regarding AA, has been around since the new CV (The CV rework of 0.8.0) took in affect. As long as the policy is around... Its only safe to assume, only CVs (and BBs) will have the best AA in the game. Those two ships will have the best AA in the game.. They're a few exceptions to the rule. Though, for the must part WG has made their in-game changes accordingly. Not much deviation either. ------------- The firing mechanic... Haven't heard anything about it and no, its not a major issue... So in WGs POV, its a players' deficiency rather then mechanical. Edited March 31 by Navalpride33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: AA.. Well if I remember correctly... Years ago the complainers wanted to nerf AA..They would complain about the same old suspects (the ATL, the De Moines, the ships labeled as no fly ships.). At 0.8.0 series, the old AA was changed in favor of what we have now. An AA mechanic made from those who complained, a better question is "who benefited with the AA changes?" CVs You do not remember correctly. Most players complained during the RTS era that AA wasn't strong enough. CV captains complained that fighter commands were too buggy and had too many exploits. The primary focus of switching to rework was to nerf fighter builds to the ground. CV captains received exceptionally boring gameplay in return and a majority of CV mains left the game altogether. WG made the gameplay so low skill so that new players would pick it up. 8 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: So to answer you question... If you're not a CV main who WG appeased with the AA change... Your request, was granted as far as WG is concerned.. Issue resolved. LOL. I am and was a CV main. I was there. Don't try to sell a false narrative here. The CV rework was HATED by CV mains. It was not at all wanted...and the issue has not been resolved. 9 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: The AA issue is done with because its in accordance with their policy.. That in game policy regarding AA, has been around since the new CV (The CV rework of 0.8.0) took in affect. As long as the policy is around... Its only safe to assume, only CVs (and BBs) will have the best AA in the game. AA issues were a source of serious work throughout 0.8s...it would only be the 0.10s when AA changes would slow down. Again, don't sell false narratives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: The CV rework was HATED by CV mains. The issue was not about CV mains hated the new CV format.. At issue. CV's complained about AA and wanted change... They got their wish... IF the hate the changes from RTS to the current format is an invalid statement... The fact remains, the changes to AA benefited CVs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: The issue was not about CV mains hated the new CV format.. At issue. CV's complained about AA and wanted change... They got their wish... IF the hate the changes from RTS to the current format is an invalid statement... The fact remains, the changes to AA benefited CVs. Nope. You are wrong that CVs complained about AA as the reason for change. Again, I WAS THERE. Stop trying to gaslight me. The majority of complaints dealt with the buggy interface and the fighter strafing exploits, which were being used to completely deplane folks with PCs unable to take advantage of the buggy interface...thereby creating a 'skill' gap. The words 'skill gap' were coined by WG staff who didn't want to admit that the core of the problems was their own inability to create stable code. Edited March 31 by Daniel_Allan_Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Nope. You are wrong that CVs complained about AA as the reason for change. Again, I WAS THERE. Stop trying to gaslight me. What you're saying have some weight as a whole or in general...There was more into the change from RTS to current CVs. WHat I highlighted, was only the AA aspect. THAT was the issue involved... Love you Mr. Clark... Your innocence and blissful enthusiasm for the topic is my entertainment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: What you're saying have some weight as a whole or in general...There was more into the change from RTS to current CVs. WHat I highlighted, was only the AA aspect. THAT was the issue involved... Love you Mr. Clark... Your innocence and blissful enthusiasm for the topic is my entertainment. Nope. What you are saying is not at all true. I was there. I participated in those discussions. Very few were concerned that ship AA was 'too strong'. The issue of the day was how to prevent THE ENEMY CV from deplaning you. WGs 'solution' was to make it functionally impossible for the enemy CV to deplane the other. Please, stop selling a false narrative. Edited March 31 by Daniel_Allan_Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 22 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: The issue of the day was how to prevent THE ENEMY CV from deplaning you. This was only a high tier issue... AA mechanic issue is an ALL tiers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Just now, Navalpride33 said: This was only a high tier issue... AA mechanic issue is an ALL tiers... Nope. All tiers had the fighter issues... Just stop. Your source of information on those days is clearly flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now