Was WoWS a better game back then or is it a better game now?

[Verblonde]

19 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Was WoWS a better game back then (whenever back then was) or is it a better game now?

Without wanting to present people with an unreasonable wall of text, I tend to think WOWS changes have been a bit of a Curate's Egg since I've been playing - at least six years. It's perhaps also worth noting that I've never been much good at the game, so my perspective will probably be a bit different compared to that of a good player.

Anyway, in no particular order:

• For me, the introduction of submarines has defined when 'back then' ended: for all the reasons that have been done to death elsewhere, submarines have been the one single change to the game that - for me - means it's much worse than it was. Indeed, they're the reason I no longer play Randoms. I want submarines in the game, *but* competently implemented ones that add to the game, not drastically detract from it (full disclosure: I do have, and play, some submarines, but never against real people).
• The CV reework has been mixed IMO; I always struggled with the RTS ones, and I wasn't the only one - with that sort of skill gap in play, it was very hard to gain the skills needed to close said gap, and given the liability that was a poorly played CV anyone who cared about team play probably didn't put their team-mates through the excruciating experience of them screwing up whilst trying to learn. I would have preferred that the RTS concept stayed, and was reworked competently, but it is what it is. Apart from a few early patches that were unplayable, I can live with reeworked CVs.
• On the general subject of dumbing down (*especially* the removal of friendly fire), I don't like it and - IMO - the game was better when it required more thought. That said, I understand why WG has gone the way they have: in general, 'people' are thick (cf the business with 1/3 lb burgers!) and not keen to learn complex things in their free time; earlier iterations of WOWS required a bit more thought (which contributed to a lot of the early adopters liking the game, I suspect). If you want to make more cash though, you need to appeal to greater volumes of punters, and that means dumbing things down; which is where we are now. Besides all that, I don't think I could resist depth-charging my own side's submarines, so it's probably just as well friendly fire was ditched...

So, I continue to play (not Randoms), but - IMO - the game used to be drastically better, but more recently than one might expect.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Verblonde

[Wolfswetpaws]

34 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

AA builds are worthless

Just played a game wherein my Cruiser shot-down 10 planes within the first two minutes.
The CV was a 'Bot Weser in a Co-op game.  
AA is not "worthless".
Though I will grant that it is not meeting everyone's expectations in every situation.  🙂 
    

 

[Gillhunter]

39 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Wargaming has gotten lazy and complacent I think with their game (balance AND content).

I totally agree.

[pew_pew_magoo]

Having only been playing since April 2020 an only very active the past few months I don’t have much to compare. I will say I very much enjoy the game in the state it is now. 

[Sailor_Moon]

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I see you're borrowing my meme? 😄

It IS a good meme though, hehe. It does get the state of the game across nicely.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Sailor_Moon

[Wolfswetpaws]

Just now, Sailor_Moon said:

I see you're borrowing my meme? 😄

It IS a good meme though, hehe.

I went directly to the "meme generator" webpage (via a quick duckduckgo search) and typed in my own text.
But, yeah, you inspired me.  🙂  👍  o7

[Gillhunter]

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Just played a game wherein my Cruiser shot-down 10 planes within the first two minutes.
The CV was a 'Bot Weser in a Co-op game.  
AA is not "worthless".
Though I will grant that it is not meeting everyone's expectations in every situation.  🙂 
   
 

I've shot down a lot more than that with a cruiser in Co-op. So what. When is they last time you have seen a CV de-planed since the rework?

[Sailor_Moon]

11 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Just played a game wherein my Cruiser shot-down 10 planes within the first two minutes.
The CV was a 'Bot Weser in a Co-op game.  
AA is not "worthless".
Though I will grant that it is not meeting everyone's expectations in every situation.  🙂 
    

 

WOLF. Bot CVs aren't the issue, and you know that 😛 ANYTHING works technically in a Co-Op scenario. Even AA. Even secondaries. Heck, even secondaries on cruisers (Yeah, even on Puerto Rico or Azuma :P). Try generating those numbers or higher against player-driven CVs.

And even then, shooting down the planes doesn't mean that AA is all hunky dory. I can shoot down 15 planes or 30 planes, that doesn't stop that CV from hitting you. You WILL be hit. And that's what I mean when I say AA builds are worthless. I didn't say AA was worthless. But it IS ineffective in its current implementation that MAKES AA builds "worthless" on all but a handful of cruisers and/or DDs. Read my comments BEFORE posting please, thanks.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Sailor_Moon

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, Gillhunter said:

I've shot down a lot more than that with a cruiser in Co-op. So what. When is they last time you have seen a CV de-planed since the rework?

I've had the occasional random battle wherein I played a CV in some intense situations and found my squadrons depeleted.
Some scenario operations have enough AA and grouped targets which over-lap their AA to deplete squadrons, too.

It seems opinions vary.  🙂

[Gillhunter]

1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I've had the occasional random battle wherein I played a CV in some intense situations and found my squadrons depeleted.
Some scenario operations have enough AA and grouped targets which over-lap their AA to deplete squadrons, too.

It seems opinions vary.  🙂

Deplete squadrons or de-planed, as in no more planes on your CV till the end of the match?

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

WOLF. Bot CVs aren't the issue, and you know that 😛 ANYTHING works technically in a Co-Op scenario. Even AA. Even secondaries. Heck, even secondaries on cruisers (Yeah, even on Puerto Rico or Azuma :P). Try generating those numbers or higher against player-driven CVs.

And even then, shooting down the planes doesn't mean that AA is all hunky dory. I can shoot down 15 planes or 30 planes, that doesn't stop that CV from hitting you. You WILL be hit. And that's what I mean when I say AA builds are worthless. I didn't say AA was worthless. But it IS ineffective in its current implementation that MAKES AA builds "worthless" on all but a handful of cruisers and/or DDs. Read my comments BEFORE posting in defense of CVs, please.

Scroll up to my earlier comment, yourself.  🙂 

 

Quote

https://www.devstrike.net/topic/500-was-wows-a-better-game-back-then-or-is-it-a-better-game-now/?do=findComment&comment=6099

Quote

RTS CV's compared to our current First-person-shooter CV's.
~RTS CV's were better at modeling flight operations and logistics.  ~FPS CV's were pitched (by WG/WOWs) as being easier to learn and more immersive.
1.  People who want realism should prefer RTS CV's, in my opinion.
2.  AA in-game was and remains more effective than it was historically (from the research I've done online in the past, which I won't repeat here).
Again, I think the people who want realism should count their blessings because they're getting AA that is more effective than it was in real-life, both in RTS CV's and with the current FPS CV's.
3.  FPS CV's merely make the swarming and deletion of an opponent's ship much more difficult than RTS CV's.

Moving along ...  🙂 

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

Well.. when's the last time anyone's seen a fully AA specced Kutuzov covering their CV's against the enemy CV attacks?

[Sailor_Moon]

5 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Scroll up to my earlier comment, yourself.  🙂 

 

 

And yet that has nothing to do with you reading my comment and responding logically to it? But Ok, sure. I'll read your comment anyways. 😄

And with all due respect, who the flip CARES whether AA remains stronger than AA HISTORICALLY? That has ZERO bearing on the argument of AA ingame. So I disgree wholeheartedly with your statement anyways.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Sailor_Moon

[Wolfswetpaws]

5 minutes ago, Gillhunter said:

Deplete squadrons or de-planed, as in no more planes on your CV till the end of the match?

Most of time I manage the planes well enough to only have one plane type sidelined for a period of time as the spares are brought from storage or flown-in.
But I've had some matches where the squadrons were depleted since the re-work.
During RTS CV's it was completely possible to be de-planed entirely.  Didn't always happen to me, but some of the "air superiority" builds would really kick my aft when I was trying to deploy a more balanced squadron load-out.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Wolfswetpaws

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

And yet that has nothing to do with you reading my comment and responding logically to it? But Ok, sure. I'll read your comment anyways. 😄

Agree to disagree, apparently.  😄 

[Sailor_Moon]

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Agree to disagree, apparently.  😄 

Yeah, except what you said has ZERO bearing on ingame AA mechanics. You're saying AA remains stronger that it was historically. Ok....and? What does that have to do with INGAME BALANCE? Nothing. I'm sorry Wolf, but that's not an argument here. For lack of a better term, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Sailor_Moon

[Gillhunter]

5 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Most of time I manage the planes well enough to only have one plane type sidelined for a period of time as the spares are brought from storage or flown-in.
But I've had some matches where the squadrons were depleted since the re-work.
During RTS CV's it was completely possible to be de-planed entirely.  Didn't always happen to me, but some of the "air superiority" builds would really kick my aft when I was trying to deploy a more balanced squadron load-out.

 

In plain English you haven't seen a CV de-planed since the rework.

[Sailor_Moon]

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Were it up to me ...  🙂 
I'd allow every Commander to access every skill, regardless of which ship they're the Captain of at the moment.
I'd keep the decision to allow every commander to have a skill-set for each ship type.
This, I feel, would increase the variety of skill-builds.

Plus, it ticks me off that Submarines cannot improve their concealment by 10% like other ships can.  🙂 

Now, I agree with you here. This would truly allow for maximum build diversity (I LIKE this!). But to be fair, Subs already have amazing concealment even without CE.....so I'm not sure about that one. But still, if it meant opening up build diversity for ALL ships? Bringing back secondary builds for cruisers, even enhancing them?? Yeah, ok, I'd go for it.

[Wolfswetpaws]

Just now, Sailor_Moon said:

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Agree to disagree, apparently.  😄 

Yeah, except what you said has ZERO bearing on ingame AA mechanics. You're saying AA remians stronger that it was historically. Ok....and? What does that have to do with INGAME BALANCE? Nothing. I'm sorry Wolf, but that's not an argument here.

While some may "make the leap" and others do not, the point is that AA in game is exceeding "reality".
So the "realism" crowd can't have it both ways.

The "expectations" not being met crowd wants instant shooting-down of an entire squadron of planes within 2 seconds or less and zero damage done to their ship.
That, in my opinion, is unrealistic and an unhealthy expectation that is going to be a disappointing standard most of the time.

Player knowledge of in-game mechanics may inspire them to "hit the 'O' key" to activate their priority-sector AA reinforcement and/or maneuver their ship.
Thus avoiding some or all of the damage that might have been scored by the planes that "got through".
And, historically, ships would maneuver to avoid aerial attacks when they could.  Which is why aerial attacks were best done when coordinated and simultaneously approached a target from multiple directions.  🙂 

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Gillhunter said:

In plain English you haven't seen a CV de-planed since the rework.

Not what I said and I feel you've incorrectly interpreted my words.  So, looks like we disagree.  🙂 

[Gillhunter]

13 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Most of time I manage the planes well enough to only have one plane type sidelined for a period of time as the spares are brought from storage or flown-in.
But I've had some matches where the squadrons were depleted since the re-work.
During RTS CV's it was completely possible to be de-planed entirely. 

 

Please tell me what I mis-iterperated

[Wolfswetpaws]

5 minutes ago, Gillhunter said:

Please tell me what I mis-iterperated

I don't know what else to say, @Gillhunter

 

[Gillhunter]

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I don't know what else to say, @Gillhunter

 

I guess you don't. Have a good day.

[Wolfswetpaws]

Just now, Gillhunter said:

Have a good day.

You, too.  🙂 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

11 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Was WoWS a better game back then (whenever back then was) or is it a better game now?

The amount of free premium ship content, including low, medium and high tier, that is available in the game today, compared to when I started six years ago, means that a player who wants a broad swath of premium ships of all types in most navies at most tiers need never open their wallet. 

The commander rework means that they can retrain their tech-tree commanders in a single premium ship of a particular nation whose ideal skill set might have nothing to do with the ship the commander came from (e.g. if all I have is a premium DD, I won't be compromising my performance in her because the commander has optimized BB, cruiser, SS or CV skills). My first 19 pointer in every nation had to take a compromise build for cruiser, destroyer and BB; my 21 pointers can optimize.

The econ rework means that I can go all-in on commander retraining or advancement on a premium ship that I like without having to waste ship XP boosts. 

I've probably ground more ships faster since the econ rework than before it, and more 21 point commanders since the captain rework than 19 pointers before it (and some of my 19 pointers from before are still at 19 points, whereas some of the 21 pointers I have now came up from 12 or 13).

 

I got tired of being dumped on by people who'd been strafing for two solid years. CV rework was the best thing that ever happened, and anyone who says otherwise is fixated on the fact that you could deplane a CV, forgetting all the other, indirect ways in which they could screw you over.