Navalpride33 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Nope. All tiers had the fighter issues... Just stop. Your source of information on those days is clearly flawed. Deplaning at high tiers happened quicker... That was the main complaint... Deplaning is not an AA issue. If you don't like CVs having better AA then all the ships in the game Mr Clark... That's your opinion and you have a right to it.. As long as the policy of CV having better AA then everyone has been around since (0.8.0). Deplaning is a none issue in today's CV. CVs demanded for better AA and they got it (with help from WG policy change to accomplish it). In the 0.8.0 to 0.9.0 series, countless changes to AA was to appease those WG stuck a torp out the fantail too. As we all know, WG had no intention of changing AA because in doing so, it has to change current CV policy. As far as I can see... There's no changes in sight on this matter. 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 1 minute ago, Navalpride33 said: Deplaning at high tiers happened quicker... That was the main complaint... Deplaning is not an AA issue. Again, nope. Texas was capable of being just as much a no fly zone as Des Moines. The issue back then was deplaning, which means that even under your assumption...AA could not have been the main complaint. 3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: If you don't like CVs having better AA then all the ships in the game Mr Clark... That's your opinion and you have a right to it.. This is not my opinion, don't be toxic and claim it is. 3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: As long as the policy of CV having better AA then everyone has been around since (0.8.0). Deplaning is a none issue in today's CV. Deplaning is a non-issue because we don't have dynamic fighters anymore. It has nothing to do with ship AA guns. This is a topic that WG staff remain willfully ignorant. 4 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: CVs demanded for better AA and they got it (with help from WG policy change to accomplish it). Blatant lie. I've already debunked this. Stop gaslighting. 5 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: In the 0.8.0 to 0.9.0 series, countless changes to AA was to appease those WG stuck a torp out the fantail too. Most of those changes were to adjust AA power to balance the number of people playing CV. It was not and has not been gameplay balanced. 6 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: As we all know, WG had no intention of changing AA because in doing so, it has to change current CV policy. As far as I can see... There's no changes in sight on this matter. True. WG has moved most of their resources to sub 'balancing'...and so CV issues remain in an utterly broken state. The tragedy is that the talent to deal with sub issues is similar to that dealing with plane issues...which leads me to believe that subs will never be balanced either. This is all the fault of WG staff not understanding their game and / or pursuing business strategies that preclude actually balancing the gameplay. Blaming the players (who WG admitted to ignoring during the CV rework process) is illogical. The root cause of these development failures is WG staff choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Again, nope. Texas was capable of being just as much a no fly zone as Des Moines. The issue back then was deplaning, which means that even under your assumption...AA could not have been the main complaint. This is not my opinion, don't be toxic and claim it is. Deplaning is a non-issue because we don't have dynamic fighters anymore. It has nothing to do with ship AA guns. This is a topic that WG staff remain willfully ignorant. Blatant lie. I've already debunked this. Stop gaslighting. Most of those changes were to adjust AA power to balance the number of people playing CV. It was not and has not been gameplay balanced. True. WG has moved most of their resources to sub 'balancing'...and so CV issues remain in an utterly broken state. The tragedy is that the talent to deal with sub issues is similar to that dealing with plane issues...which leads me to believe that subs will never be balanced either. This is all the fault of WG staff not understanding their game and / or pursuing business strategies that preclude actually balancing the gameplay. Blaming the players (who WG admitted to ignoring during the CV rework process) is illogical. The root cause of these development failures is WG staff choices. In both issues... Subs and CV AA being tops in game.. Have been changed because of players' complaining.. Mainly CVs BBs Subs shotgunned me... Yet they forget history, the reason why BBs are now razor blades and museum pieces.. Was for the actions of Submarines. Subs are complained about even in game. The only reason Subs are being nerf'd to the ground, is to appease the BB drivers... This is not the first change to appease them. The only time Subs were balanced, was before BBs and CVs advocated for changes. When Subs first appeared in the operation.. They were fun.. Now.. Not so much. AA mechanic same thing... AA was changed to appease those who are to benefit from the change... CVs. As I noted earlier... The community has to take the 5th and let WG do their jobs.. Stop giving them ideas for free through advocating for change.. As I noted in the past.. Both parties are not innocent of making bad choices or implementing bad elements in the game. All we have to do is look at past patches and see which ones were WG ideas and which ones were the player base. Priors will not be ignored or swept under the rug... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 15 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: In both issues... Subs and CV AA being tops in game.. Have been changed because of players' complaining.. Mainly CVs BBs Subs shotgunned me... Yet they forget history, the reason why BBs are now razor blades and museum pieces.. Was for the actions of Submarines. Subs are complained about even in game. The only reason Subs are being nerf'd to the ground, is to appease the BB drivers... This is not the first change to appease them. The only time Subs were balanced, was before BBs and CVs advocated for changes. When Subs first appeared in the operation.. They were fun.. Now.. Not so much. AA mechanic same thing... AA was changed to appease those who are to benefit from the change... CVs. As I noted earlier... The community has to take the 5th and let WG do their jobs.. Stop giving them ideas for free through advocating for change.. As I noted in the past.. Both parties are not innocent of making bad choices or implementing bad elements in the game. All we have to do is look at past patches and see which ones were WG ideas and which ones were the player base. Priors will not be ignored or swept under the rug... I suspect sub gameplay is being adjusted primarily by the population numbers of players who decide to play subs. That would be the same playbook for CV related changes. I still think the only actual people with power are WG staff. It is pointless and a waste to try to blame the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfYouSeeKhaos Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 On 3/29/2024 at 6:09 AM, 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). 🤣😂 (Reply to this below) [[[Dang...meant to quote this 1st...(going to comment on it 1st & the comment to the top quote will be below the triple brackets): 1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said: This was only a high tier issue... If it was only a high tier issue...why did they remove manual drops & strafing from T4 CVs years before the CV rework (which was in the same exact update they removed T4 missions btw...again...years before the CV rework)]]] [[[Sorry...had most of this below typed out before I realized that comment was easier to answer & should have been on top...so now...onto my comment of the 1st quote]]] (On phone...can't remove emojis... they're not part of what I am quoting)... Sorry old buddy but that (WG not wanting subs) is 1 Million % wrong. WG has always wanted to acknowledge every member of all navy services...no matter what nation or what ship type they served in (in fact every premium sold has a percentage of the proceeds go to the veterans of the nation the ship comes from). WG are big boys & have the ability to decide what they want or don't want in their game... & There ain't jack ANYBODY can say to make them change their minds about what THEY WANT... Unfortunately (& where a lot of the confusion comes from) they let their CMs (who are NOT developers...& have zero privvy to anything having to do with development up until the couple weeks before the update it starts testing in...but as compared to us...yes...they) have privvy to what is coming up before it gets released to us so they can prepare the articles & such...unfortunately that leads to some CMs getting that early notice & trying to make themselves look good by saying, "oh...that sounds like a good suggestion" when somebody brings things up that they know are going to be released so they can pretend they're "forwarding your suggestions... & WG is listening"... In truth... they're not...just because sometimes people make suggestions that eventually get implemented (either right away or... eventually) does not mean that WG gives a flying leap about our suggestions or that we in any way whatsoever have any say-so about any direction the game ever has or ever will go... We are free testers to WG...& That is all.. If your ego demands you to be more important in the grand scheme of things & insist this is not true... GET OVER YOURSELF (Sorry Navel...but in your case it's you aren't responsible for any of it & it's the rest of the player base that is to blame... THEY AREN'T)...it is & always will be WGs game...& onlyWGs game...period. Every change in the game ever has been WG building the exact game they want to develop. As for Chieftain's video...it was (at the time) 1 Million % the truth...at that time subs...(paraphrased...been a minute since I've seen it) "wouldn't fit in the game...because they would get spotted & be instantly eliminated"... (Please relisten to the 2nd line of that video...1st of course being, "There will be no subs in the game"... Do you (does anybody) recall the 2nd line? I'll refresh you're memory... "We looked"... (Why look if they don't want them in the game?) But why? Why would they be instantly spotted & eliminated back then? Because RTS CVs had multiple squadrons of planes that could simultaneously spot anywhere on the whole map at the same time. Forget the year but one summer they announced a CV rework (which they implemented the start of the next year in the now infamous 0.8.0 update)... Seems like a pretty big endeavor... doesn't it? The kind of project you would want to complete before even considering trying to implement any other kind of changes in the game... especially any kind of MAJOR change. Yet...after that summer announcement of a MAJOR CV rework...& yet still months before the actual release of that CV rework...guess what the Halloween event that same year introduced... Subs...& Not just subs as a gimmick for a Halloween event...but subs in a Halloween event with a most definite announcement that subs would begin development...& Not after the CV rework was done (or even started yet)...but... AT THE SAME TIME!!! & of course the pitchforks came out & the cries of "WG lied to us" started... But did they lie? NO...They did not... When chieftan made that video it was (again...not an exaggerating) 1 Million % true... Subs would not work in the game...not with 8-10 planes flying around every match with a CV...they would be instantly annihilated...but... With a single squadron of planes that only spot where the area they are in & a fighter consumable only allowed to sit in the exact place where it is deployed...subs can survive w/out being instantly spotted & eliminated. So no..they didn't lie in Chieftain's video...they told the truth.about that... But what they failed to mention was that (amongst all the reasons they gave for the CV rework)...that the main reason for the CV rework was... The start of (& actually the most necessary change to ever to be able to allow) the implementation of subs to the game. @Daniel_Allan_Clark...quoting you in to give you both the reference that you were both there for & know to be true... Subs were announced after CV rework was announced but before they ever started to implement it...doesn't it seem to be a no brainier when you look at the timeline that the 2 were not only a conjunctive thing...but that the planning of it a was storyboarded long long before they were ever announced & pretty much zero input (outside of testing data) from anybody outside the developers corner was ever considered fir any of it... It was ALL WG...& only WG. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) 17 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: WG has always wanted to acknowledge every member of all navy services...no matter what nation or what ship type they served in (in fact every premium sold has a percentage of the proceeds go to the veterans of the nation the ship comes from). This was after the fact... Subs were not wanted until they came out in the operations.. Once it was out... Its out... Was sub included with the change from RTSCV... That I can't comment on.. Back to the original topic, AA changes happened because of the point I noted in the past... There was a lot of point leading to the changes for that Im not disputing.. On the topic of AA, We wanted the change, we were the catalyst for AA change.. That was before Covid, before the implementation of 0.8.0. ---------------------------------------------- What I dont like, is us the player base blaming a historian (of WOT) for something, he had no idea on. Saying it was WG. It was not, it was a guy who probably dont play ships. Having a Boomer moment. 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 40 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: We wanted the change, we were the catalyst for AA change. 'We'? Nope. That's BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 59 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: (Reply to this below) [[[Dang...meant to quote this 1st...(going to comment on it 1st & the comment to the top quote will be below the triple brackets): If it was only a high tier issue...why did they remove manual drops & strafing from T4 CVs years before the CV rework (which was in the same exact update they removed T4 missions btw...again...years before the CV rework)]]] [[[Sorry...had most of this below typed out before I realized that comment was easier to answer & should have been on top...so now...onto my comment of the 1st quote]]] (On phone...can't remove emojis... they're not part of what I am quoting)... Sorry old buddy but that (WG not wanting subs) is 1 Million % wrong. WG has always wanted to acknowledge every member of all navy services...no matter what nation or what ship type they served in (in fact every premium sold has a percentage of the proceeds go to the veterans of the nation the ship comes from). WG are big boys & have the ability to decide what they want or don't want in their game... & There ain't jack ANYBODY can say to make them change their minds about what THEY WANT... Unfortunately (& where a lot of the confusion comes from) they let their CMs (who are NOT developers...& have zero privvy to anything having to do with development up until the couple weeks before the update it starts testing in...but as compared to us...yes...they) have privvy to what is coming up before it gets released to us so they can prepare the articles & such...unfortunately that leads to some CMs getting that early notice & trying to make themselves look good by saying, "oh...that sounds like a good suggestion" when somebody brings things up that they know are going to be released so they can pretend they're "forwarding your suggestions... & WG is listening"... In truth... they're not...just because sometimes people make suggestions that eventually get implemented (either right away or... eventually) does not mean that WG gives a flying leap about our suggestions or that we in any way whatsoever have any say-so about any direction the game ever has or ever will go... We are free testers to WG...& That is all.. If your ego demands you to be more important in the grand scheme of things & insist this is not true... GET OVER YOURSELF (Sorry Navel...but in your case it's you aren't responsible for any of it & it's the rest of the player base that is to blame... THEY AREN'T)...it is & always will be WGs game...& onlyWGs game...period. Every change in the game ever has been WG building the exact game they want to develop. As for Chieftain's video...it was (at the time) 1 Million % the truth...at that time subs...(paraphrased...been a minute since I've seen it) "wouldn't fit in the game...because they would get spotted & be instantly eliminated"... (Please relisten to the 2nd line of that video...1st of course being, "There will be no subs in the game"... Do you (does anybody) recall the 2nd line? I'll refresh you're memory... "We looked"... (Why look if they don't want them in the game?) But why? Why would they be instantly spotted & eliminated back then? Because RTS CVs had multiple squadrons of planes that could simultaneously spot anywhere on the whole map at the same time. Forget the year but one summer they announced a CV rework (which they implemented the start of the next year in the now infamous 0.8.0 update)... Seems like a pretty big endeavor... doesn't it? The kind of project you would want to complete before even considering trying to implement any other kind of changes in the game... especially any kind of MAJOR change. Yet...after that summer announcement of a MAJOR CV rework...& yet still months before the actual release of that CV rework...guess what the Halloween event that same year introduced... Subs...& Not just subs as a gimmick for a Halloween event...but subs in a Halloween event with a most definite announcement that subs would begin development...& Not after the CV rework was done (or even started yet)...but... AT THE SAME TIME!!! & of course the pitchforks came out & the cries of "WG lied to us" started... But did they lie? NO...They did not... When chieftan made that video it was (again...not an exaggerating) 1 Million % true... Subs would not work in the game...not with 8-10 planes flying around every match with a CV...they would be instantly annihilated...but... With a single squadron of planes that only spot where the area they are in & a fighter consumable only allowed to sit in the exact place where it is deployed...subs can survive w/out being instantly spotted & eliminated. So no..they didn't lie in Chieftain's video...they told the truth.about that... But what they failed to mention was that (amongst all the reasons they gave for the CV rework)...that the main reason for the CV rework was... The start of (& actually the most necessary change to ever to be able to allow) the implementation of subs to the game. @Daniel_Allan_Clark...quoting you in to give you both the reference that you were both there for & know to be true... Subs were announced after CV rework was announced but before they ever started to implement it...doesn't it seem to be a no brainier when you look at the timeline that the 2 were not only a conjunctive thing...but that the planning of it a was storyboarded long long before they were ever announced & pretty much zero input (outside of testing data) from anybody outside the developers corner was ever considered fir any of it... It was ALL WG...& only WG. In hindsight, the sub implementation timing makes sense with what you are saying might have happened. At the time, we didn't connect those dots. There was also increasing pressure on WG to make actual boats...as they had gotten close to exhausting easy to make historical ships from the 1940s era...which is another self inflicted wound by WG development... Consciously choosing the naval gun era timeframe with the LEAST content to make the centerpiece of the game. How dumb and shortsighted can you get? It makes sense that they would encourage folks to blame the customers...who wants to admit that they made serious mistakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfYouSeeKhaos Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 On 3/30/2024 at 9:11 PM, Navalpride33 said: This was after the fact... What was after what fact? From the start of the game WG has wanted subs...they just couldn't figure out how to implement them as long as they had RTS CVs... But even before Chieftain's video (way before) they already had not only an icon for them but they also had 1 of the low tier IJN DDs that bobbed up & down in port as a place holder for a model design...testers had them on their accounts...though they couldn't run them of courses as the underwater world for them hadn't been created yet. Subs were not wanted until they came out in the operations.. Once it was out... Its out... This is contradictory... You said WG didn't want subs & you're now saying subs weren't wanted (I assume by the player base) until they came out in the operations... If they weren't wanted by the player base until after they came out in the operations... & they weren't wanted by WG until the player base asked for them... Why did WG release them in the operations (before the player base wanted them)...if WG didn't want them? Was sub included with the change from RTSCV... That I can't comment on... Actually (& this is an important distinction) you got that backwards...the way you have it worded is the change in RTS CVs brought about subs inclusion...which wouldn't have been necessary... IOW...RTS CVs could have been changed w/out subs ever needing to be implemented...but...in acuality... The change from RTS CVs was included in the implementation of subs as the change from RTS CVs was needed in order to be able to implement subs... IOW...the CV rework was not a stand alone project but was actually just the 1st (& absolutely necessary) step in the implementation of subs. Back to the original topic, AA changes... Sorry... lost track of that conversation...too much back & forth between you 2 to keep up. That was before Covid, before the implementation of 0.8.0. It seems that just saying "before 0.8.0" should be sufficient as Covid happened years later...are you suggesting that the 2 are related somehow? I'll be the 1st to say that 0.8.0 blew major chunks...but I'm not sure we can blame Covid on it...though I have to admit that I hated 0.8.0 enough that I am willing to at least listen to any theories that may tie the 2 together...especially as they definitely at least share the common moniker of "plagues". What I dont like, is us the player base blaming a historian (of WOT) for something, he had no idea on***. (What reference are you basing his "lack of idea" on?) Saying it was WG. Dude...back at that time (way before 0.8.0 when a huge chunk of the veterans quit) 90% (actually in the very beginning it was pretty much 100%) of the testers for WOWS came from WOT (which had been out for many years before WOWS came out)... Chieftain was most definitely in the loop on these things & was speaking as an inside source from the developers... When he said, "We looked"...you can be sure that he actually was 1 of those that were doing the looking (testing). It was not, it was a guy who probably dont play ships. Having a Boomer moment. You should delete all that...it really doesn't help your cause to try belittling Chieftain... ***Especially trying to state it as if you have some kind of insider knowledge of the whole thing... It basically sounds like you're saying that just because somebody is a historian on tanks that he's incapable of even playing a ship game??? It makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiron Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 It's a Russian ship! Who cares! There all paper cheat ships not damn thing bigger than DD actually sailed in WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 4 hours ago, Chiron said: It's a Russian ship! Who cares! There all paper cheat ships not damn thing bigger than DD actually sailed in WW2. Chervona Ukraina actively fought in the defense of Sevastopol in 1941 along with Krazny Kavkaz and Komintern. Chervona Ukraina was sunk by air attack after her guns were removed to assist in the defense of Sevastopol. Komintern was wrecked by air attack in July 1942. Krazny Kavkaz survived the war and was engaged in active operations (escorting amphibious operations and coastal bombardment) until 1943 when Stalin halted surface combatant actions in the Black Sea. Krazny Krim, her sister cruiser, was also involved in these operations and also survived the war. Another cruiser, the Molotov, was the fleets radar cruiser and would provide early warning for Sevastopol...and then participate in the amphibious operations. She also survived the war. The cruiser Voroshilov also participated in these actions. Kirov was heavily engaged covering the retreat of the Soviet Armies along the Black Sea...and would make it back to Leningrad where she would provide fire support for the entirety of the siege. In 1944, she would be repaired and would finish repairs at the end of the war. Her sister the Maxim Gorky had a similar career...providing gunfire support during the siege of Leningrad and gunfire support for the Russian advance into Finland in 1944. That would be seven cruisers actively engaged in naval warfare in world war 2. Sounds like you need to do some research so you can avoid believing propaganda. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlooky Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 (edited) 4 hours ago, Chiron said: It's a Russian ship! Who cares! There all paper cheat ships not damn thing bigger than DD actually sailed in WW2. Easily false, and many Soviet paper ships in game have much more documentation, or in other cases, actual construction, than paper ships of other nations. France and Germany are particularly egregious violators of this that seem to get a free pass from the community. Edited April 5 by Unlooky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 24 minutes ago, Unlooky said: Easily false, and many Soviet paper ships in game have much more documentation, or in other cases, actual construction, than paper ships of other nations. France and Germany are particularly egregious violators of this that seem to get a free pass from the community. The German surface navy in particular did very little fighting compared to other nations. If we are going to look down on the Russian ships for being stuck in harbor a lot...the same applies to German ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOBTHEBALL Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 On 3/29/2024 at 11:07 AM, mashed68 said: Someone playing a Russian ship is talking about the game being rigged? Oh the irony. Russian bias barely exists in this game these days. Compared to their peers most Russian ships aren't OP at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOBTHEBALL Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 6 hours ago, Chiron said: It's a Russian ship! Who cares! There all paper cheat ships not damn thing bigger than DD actually sailed in WW2. That's not necessarily true 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