Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 56 (click to see context) from:
** The implementation of the slow BB line was also controversial, for two different reasons. One was that it was perceived as lazy, starting the split at Tier 8 and thus only having 3 ships and not incorporating any of the real-life Standard Battleship classes that weren't in the game yet, instead only adding two versions of the cancelled 1920 ''South Dakota'' class[[note]]Also seen as a sign of laziness; the fact that they both use the same hull means large portions of the 3D model are identical and thus Wargaming effectively only designed 2 and a half ships rather than 3 ships for the line.[[/note]] (unrelated to the 1939 class of the same name) for Tiers 8 and 9 and a Wargaming creation loosely based on the "Tillman Battleship" design studies at Tier 10. The other controversy was that the 3 ships added are widely seen as underpowered, with their large number of big guns not actually being sufficient to make up for glacially slow top speed and main gun reload (23 knots and 45 seconds, respectively), along with mediocre at best armor.
to:
** The implementation of the slow BB line was also controversial, for two different reasons. One was that it was perceived as lazy, starting the split at Tier 8 and thus only having 3 ships and not incorporating any of the real-life Standard Battleship classes that weren't in the game yet, instead only adding two versions of the cancelled 1920 ''South Dakota'' class[[note]]Also seen as a sign of laziness; the fact that they both use the same hull means large portions of the 3D model are identical and thus Wargaming effectively only designed 2 and a half ships rather than 3 ships for the line.[[/note]] (unrelated to the 1939 class of the same name) for Tiers 8 and 9 and a Wargaming creation loosely based on the "Tillman Battleship" design studies at Tier 10. The other controversy was that the 3 ships added are widely seen as underpowered, with their large number of big guns not actually being sufficient to make up for glacially slow top speed and main gun reload (23 knots and 45 seconds, respectively), along with mediocre at best armor.armor.
* The entire development process and implementation of submarines into the game has essentially been a replay of the drama surrounding the infamous CV Rework. In their earliest incarnations, submarines played relatively close to their real life counterparts, being fairly slow, relying mostly on their stealth to get into attack positions, and being very vulnerable to depth charges. However, come their official implemenation in 2022, submarines have drastically changed, and for a large portion of the playerbase, for the worse. The primary issue is that like carriers, there aren't really any reliable methods to counterplay submarines. While submerged, submarines are completely undetectable, even by hydroacoustic search (whose main purpose in real life was to ''find submarines''), and are completely invulnerable to attack except for depth charges. However, they have enough HP that they can easily tank up to 20+ depth charges. And this is assuming you can even catch up to the submarine to drop depth charges on it, because most submarines can travel at least 30 knots, making their speed on par or ''faster'' than most destroyers. While surfaced, submarines benefit from a hidden damage reduction similar to French destroyers, which significantly reduces the damage they take from shells making them deceptively difficult to kill given their HP pool. Finally, and most egregiously, submarines have '''homing torpedoes''', something no other ship in the game has access to. This allows submarines to easily harass battleships and cruisers and sink destroyers, their intended counter. Anti-sub players have repeatedly brought these criticisms to Wargaming during the entire development process and were subsequently ignored, leading many to believe that just like the CV Rework, Wargaming is deliberating making submarines overpowered in order to artificially boost submarine player numbers.
* The entire development process and implementation of submarines into the game has essentially been a replay of the drama surrounding the infamous CV Rework. In their earliest incarnations, submarines played relatively close to their real life counterparts, being fairly slow, relying mostly on their stealth to get into attack positions, and being very vulnerable to depth charges. However, come their official implemenation in 2022, submarines have drastically changed, and for a large portion of the playerbase, for the worse. The primary issue is that like carriers, there aren't really any reliable methods to counterplay submarines. While submerged, submarines are completely undetectable, even by hydroacoustic search (whose main purpose in real life was to ''find submarines''), and are completely invulnerable to attack except for depth charges. However, they have enough HP that they can easily tank up to 20+ depth charges. And this is assuming you can even catch up to the submarine to drop depth charges on it, because most submarines can travel at least 30 knots, making their speed on par or ''faster'' than most destroyers. While surfaced, submarines benefit from a hidden damage reduction similar to French destroyers, which significantly reduces the damage they take from shells making them deceptively difficult to kill given their HP pool. Finally, and most egregiously, submarines have '''homing torpedoes''', something no other ship in the game has access to. This allows submarines to easily harass battleships and cruisers and sink destroyers, their intended counter. Anti-sub players have repeatedly brought these criticisms to Wargaming during the entire development process and were subsequently ignored, leading many to believe that just like the CV Rework, Wargaming is deliberating making submarines overpowered in order to artificially boost submarine player numbers.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
* From the moment carriers were introduced the fandom is split between people who hate CV's and CV mains. The majority of the playerbase simply aren't interested in playing carriers in a game that is meant to be about gun warships. As time has gone on, CVs have only become more hated.
to:
* From the moment carriers were introduced the fandom is split between people who hate CV's and CV mains. The majority of the playerbase simply aren't interested in playing carriers in a game that is meant to be about gun warships. As time has gone on, CVs the years have passed, Carriers have only become more hated.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 55,56 (click to see context) from:
* The July 2020 reveal that a new line of ships was going to be slow super-dreadnought style US Battleships. A fictional continuation of the pre-war "Standard Battleships" that were mostly relegated to land bombardments in WW2, splitting off from the "Fast Battleships" at Tier 8. Requests for this sub-line had been floating around for years, but at the current time most players had expected & wanted a new line to be Italian Battleships, which could be comprised of ships that actually existed.
** The implementation of the slow BB line was also controversial, for two different reasons. One was that it was perceived as lazy, starting the split at Tier 8 and thus only having 3 ships and not incorporating any of the real-life Standard Battleship classes that weren't in the game yet, instead only adding two versions of the cancelled 1920 ''South Dakota'' class (unrelated to the 1939 class of the same name) for Tiers 8 and 9 and a Wargaming creaiton loosely based on the "Tillman Battleship" design studies at Tier 10. The other controversy was that the 3 ships added are widely seen as underpowered, with their large number of big guns not actually being sufficient to make up for glacially slow top speed and main gun reload (23 knots and 45 seconds, respectively), along with mediocre at best armor.
** The implementation of the slow BB line was also controversial, for two different reasons. One was that it was perceived as lazy, starting the split at Tier 8 and thus only having 3 ships and not incorporating any of the real-life Standard Battleship classes that weren't in the game yet, instead only adding two versions of the cancelled 1920 ''South Dakota'' class (unrelated to the 1939 class of the same name) for Tiers 8 and 9 and a Wargaming creaiton loosely based on the "Tillman Battleship" design studies at Tier 10. The other controversy was that the 3 ships added are widely seen as underpowered, with their large number of big guns not actually being sufficient to make up for glacially slow top speed and main gun reload (23 knots and 45 seconds, respectively), along with mediocre at best armor.
to:
* The July 2020 reveal that a new line of ships was going to be slow super-dreadnought style US Battleships. A fictional continuation of the pre-war "Standard Battleships" that were mostly relegated to land bombardments in WW2, [=WW2=], splitting off from the "Fast Battleships" at Tier 8. Requests for this sub-line had been floating around for years, but at the current time most players had expected & wanted a new line to be Italian Battleships, which could be comprised of ships that actually existed.
** The implementation of the slow BB line was also controversial, for two different reasons. One was that it was perceived as lazy, starting the split at Tier 8 and thus only having 3 ships and not incorporating any of the real-life Standard Battleship classes that weren't in the game yet, instead only adding two versions of the cancelled 1920 ''South Dakota''class class[[note]]Also seen as a sign of laziness; the fact that they both use the same hull means large portions of the 3D model are identical and thus Wargaming effectively only designed 2 and a half ships rather than 3 ships for the line.[[/note]] (unrelated to the 1939 class of the same name) for Tiers 8 and 9 and a Wargaming creaiton creation loosely based on the "Tillman Battleship" design studies at Tier 10. The other controversy was that the 3 ships added are widely seen as underpowered, with their large number of big guns not actually being sufficient to make up for glacially slow top speed and main gun reload (23 knots and 45 seconds, respectively), along with mediocre at best armor.
** The implementation of the slow BB line was also controversial, for two different reasons. One was that it was perceived as lazy, starting the split at Tier 8 and thus only having 3 ships and not incorporating any of the real-life Standard Battleship classes that weren't in the game yet, instead only adding two versions of the cancelled 1920 ''South Dakota''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
* From the moment carriers were introduced the fandom is split between people who hate CV's and CV mains. The majority of the playerbase simply aren't interested in playing carriers in a game that is meant to be about gun warships.
to:
* From the moment carriers were introduced the fandom is split between people who hate CV's and CV mains. The majority of the playerbase simply aren't interested in playing carriers in a game that is meant to be about gun warships. As time has gone on, CVs have only become more hated.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** There was also the fact that while pre-rework [=CVs=] existed at all tiers from IV to X, after the rework all odd-tiered [=CVs=] were removed and only Tiers IV, VI, VIII and X remained. The odd-tiered premium [=CVs=] (all Tier VII) became Tier VIII after the rework. While essentially everybody thought this was stupid and/or lazy on Wargaming's part, opinion was still split into two basic camps. Those who liked [=CVs=] were outraged that some of their favorite ships were being removed, many of which were quite iconic like the Tier IX American ''Essex'' and Tier IX Japanese ''Taiho''. While CV haters were inclined to quip that it removing odd-tier [=CVs=] was a good start, and Wargaming just needed to remove the even-tiered ones as well.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 38 (click to see context) from:
* When the CV rework dropped not only was its nature controversial but so was the nature of the next two hotfixes, 8.01 and 8.02. While everyone agreed that the 8.00 ''Hakuryu'' was completely broken on release, some people thought every other CV was fine. However some people hated the new system entirely, in no small part of the massive counter play [=CVs=] potentially had against [=DDs.=] Then 8.01 dropped and massively increased AA and removed a couple of exploits. [[note]]Most notably carriers being able to press the F key to instantly render their squadrons invulnerable by recalling them to the carrier[[/note]], but basically made any attack run a suicide mission at tier 8 at above because AA worked too well. However this didn't stop high tier CV game-play as intrepid carriers found they could "cold drop" ordnance before attacking so that they put less aircraft in danger. Some people argued this immediately defeated the purpose of the rework as it put a relatively high skill curve to enter CV play. ''Then'' war-gaming announced the AA scaling at tier 8 and above was higher than intended and released 8.02 which put AA in the middle of 8.01 and 8.00 at higher tiers. Some people argued this was just right, others said it was much closer than the previous two but needed fine tuning, others still thought it was too strong, some thought 8.01 AA should have been retained, still others thought 8.01 AA was still too weak, and a last group just hated the whole new concept promised to be angry no matter what level AA was at. Its without a doubt the most fractured and factionalized the fandom has ever been due to a change.
to:
* When the CV rework dropped not only was its nature controversial but so was the nature of the next two hotfixes, 8.01 and 8.02. While everyone agreed that the 8.00 ''Hakuryu'' was completely broken on release, some people thought every other CV was fine. However some people hated the new system entirely, in no small part of the massive counter play [=CVs=] potentially had against [=DDs.=] [=DDs=] (when previously [=DDs=] had been a primary counter to [=CVs=], now the reverse was the case and [=CVs=] arguably no longer '''have''' any class that hard-counters them). Then 8.01 dropped and massively increased AA and removed a couple of exploits. [[note]]Most notably carriers being able to press the F key to instantly render their squadrons invulnerable by recalling them to the carrier[[/note]], but basically made any attack run a suicide mission at tier 8 at above because AA worked too well. However this didn't stop high tier CV game-play as intrepid carriers found they could "cold drop" ordnance before attacking so that they put less aircraft in danger. Some people argued this immediately defeated the purpose of the rework as it put a relatively high skill curve to enter CV play. ''Then'' war-gaming announced the AA scaling at tier 8 and above was higher than intended and released 8.02 which put AA in the middle of 8.01 and 8.00 at higher tiers. Some people argued this was just right, others said it was much closer than the previous two but needed fine tuning, others still thought it was too strong, some thought 8.01 AA should have been retained, still others thought 8.01 AA was still too weak, and a last group just hated the whole new concept promised to be angry no matter what level AA was at. Its without a doubt the most fractured and factionalized the fandom has ever been due to a change.
Added DiffLines:
** When former community contributor Flamu released a video he'd taken a community contributor summit, the CV rework controversy exploded yet again. In the presentation given to the [=CCs=], Wargaming essentially admitted that they were aware [=CVs=] are excesively powerful but weren't doing anything about it because they wanted to keep CV player numbers high. The idea that they're apparently judging the "success" of the CV rework solely on the basis of how many people play [=CVs=] and then guaranteeing that the number would stay high by making [=CVs=] overpowered enraged non-CV players, who concluded that Wargaming is ruining the game for everybody else just so they can avoid telling their bosses that the rework was a failure.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:
* The July 2020 reveal that a new line of ships was going to be slow super-dreadnought style US Battleships. A fictional continuation of the pre-war "Standard Battleships" that were mostly relegated to land bombardments in WW2, splitting off from the "Fast Battleships" at Tier 8. Requests for this sub-line had been floating around for years, but at the current time most players had expected & wanted a new line to be Italian Battleships, which could be comprised of ships that actually existed.
to:
* The July 2020 reveal that a new line of ships was going to be slow super-dreadnought style US Battleships. A fictional continuation of the pre-war "Standard Battleships" that were mostly relegated to land bombardments in WW2, splitting off from the "Fast Battleships" at Tier 8. Requests for this sub-line had been floating around for years, but at the current time most players had expected & wanted a new line to be Italian Battleships, which could be comprised of ships that actually existed.existed.
** The implementation of the slow BB line was also controversial, for two different reasons. One was that it was perceived as lazy, starting the split at Tier 8 and thus only having 3 ships and not incorporating any of the real-life Standard Battleship classes that weren't in the game yet, instead only adding two versions of the cancelled 1920 ''South Dakota'' class (unrelated to the 1939 class of the same name) for Tiers 8 and 9 and a Wargaming creaiton loosely based on the "Tillman Battleship" design studies at Tier 10. The other controversy was that the 3 ships added are widely seen as underpowered, with their large number of big guns not actually being sufficient to make up for glacially slow top speed and main gun reload (23 knots and 45 seconds, respectively), along with mediocre at best armor.
** The implementation of the slow BB line was also controversial, for two different reasons. One was that it was perceived as lazy, starting the split at Tier 8 and thus only having 3 ships and not incorporating any of the real-life Standard Battleship classes that weren't in the game yet, instead only adding two versions of the cancelled 1920 ''South Dakota'' class (unrelated to the 1939 class of the same name) for Tiers 8 and 9 and a Wargaming creaiton loosely based on the "Tillman Battleship" design studies at Tier 10. The other controversy was that the 3 ships added are widely seen as underpowered, with their large number of big guns not actually being sufficient to make up for glacially slow top speed and main gun reload (23 knots and 45 seconds, respectively), along with mediocre at best armor.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
* The Radio Position Finding captain skill (formerly "Keen Intuition" in an early leak) for the impending 2017 rework of the skill tree caused an immediate firestorm, especially among players who specialize in destroyers. The skill is widely seen as gutting all stealth and ambush tactics (what destroyers and especially Japanese ones rely heavily on) because it gives an indicator pointing in the direction of the nearest enemy ship ''even if it's not spotted''. While some players argue that it's not actually a GameBreaker because it's an expensive skill that requires giving up other valuable skills, others have decried it as a legal version of hacking the game. When the skill came up on the public test server and could be actually tried out in action, opinions if anything became even ''more'' polarized with many declaring it to be as bad or worse than feared. [[BigNameFan Prominent Youtuber and super-unicum player Flamu]] is on the record as feeling like he's cheating while testing the skill. Ultimately RPF turned out to have relatively limited impact, with ironically Japanese destroyers being the ships that use it the most (albeit defensively to avoid getting into gunfights that they can't win). Flamu has attributed this to most players not understanding how to use it ''offensively'' to hunt down enemy DDs or even to accurately aim torpedoes at unspotted enemies under certain situations.
to:
* The Radio Position Finding captain skill (formerly "Keen Intuition" in an early leak) for the impending 2017 rework of the skill tree caused an immediate firestorm, especially among players who specialize in destroyers. The skill is widely seen as gutting all stealth and ambush tactics (what destroyers and especially Japanese ones rely heavily on) because it gives an indicator pointing in the direction of the nearest enemy ship ''even if it's not spotted''. While some players argue that it's not actually a GameBreaker because it's an expensive skill that requires giving up other valuable skills, others have decried it as a legal version of hacking the game. When the skill came up on the public test server and could be actually tried out in action, opinions if anything became even ''more'' polarized with many declaring it to be as bad or worse than feared. [[BigNameFan [[FandomVIP Prominent Youtuber and super-unicum player Flamu]] is on the record as feeling like he's cheating while testing the skill. Ultimately RPF turned out to have relatively limited impact, with ironically Japanese destroyers being the ships that use it the most (albeit defensively to avoid getting into gunfights that they can't win). Flamu has attributed this to most players not understanding how to use it ''offensively'' to hunt down enemy DDs or even to accurately aim torpedoes at unspotted enemies under certain situations.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 52 (click to see context) from:
* Overlapping chronologically with the Naval Training Center/Research Bureau controversy was the announcement that submarines had begun testing and would be added to the game at some later date. Some players were very happy because they'd been wanting subs to be added for a long time, while other players had been dreading the notion of submarines for just as long. And the footage of early test gameplay at Gamescom 2019 only fueled the divide, since the submarines were given speeds (both surfaced and submerged) far in excess of what any of them could achieve in reality, they had active sonar (something no UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarine ever carried) and they're armed with ''guided'' torpedoes. Some players defended this by saying that UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarines with more realistic speeds would be unable to keep up with the surface ships already in the game, while the anti-submarine camp responded by arguing that's exactly why they shouldn't be added.
to:
* Overlapping chronologically with the Naval Training Center/Research Bureau controversy was the announcement that submarines had begun testing and would be added to the game at some later date. Some players were very happy because they'd been wanting subs to be added for a long time, while other players had been dreading the notion of submarines for just as long. And the footage of early test gameplay at Gamescom 2019 only fueled the divide, since the submarines were given speeds (both surfaced and submerged) far in excess of what any of them could achieve in reality, they had active sonar (something no UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarine ever carried) and they're armed with ''guided'' torpedoes. Some players defended this by saying that UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarines with more realistic speeds would be unable to keep up with the surface ships already in the game, while the anti-submarine camp responded by arguing that's exactly why they shouldn't be added.added.
* The July 2020 reveal that a new line of ships was going to be slow super-dreadnought style US Battleships. A fictional continuation of the pre-war "Standard Battleships" that were mostly relegated to land bombardments in WW2, splitting off from the "Fast Battleships" at Tier 8. Requests for this sub-line had been floating around for years, but at the current time most players had expected & wanted a new line to be Italian Battleships, which could be comprised of ships that actually existed.
* The July 2020 reveal that a new line of ships was going to be slow super-dreadnought style US Battleships. A fictional continuation of the pre-war "Standard Battleships" that were mostly relegated to land bombardments in WW2, splitting off from the "Fast Battleships" at Tier 8. Requests for this sub-line had been floating around for years, but at the current time most players had expected & wanted a new line to be Italian Battleships, which could be comprised of ships that actually existed.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
** In an example of how history repeats, RealLife pre-UsefulNotes/WorldWarI battleship advocates also didn't want to acknowledge the potential power of torpedoes, as it seemed dreadfully unfair that such formidable and expensive vessels could be so easily sunk by tiny torpedo-carrying destroyers. Unfortunately for both past and present-day battleship enthusiasts, sinking heavy units is exactly what torpedoes are for.
to:
** In an example of how history repeats, RealLife pre-UsefulNotes/WorldWarI battleship advocates also didn't want to acknowledge the potential power of torpedoes, as it seemed dreadfully unfair that such formidable and expensive vessels could be so easily sunk by tiny torpedo-carrying destroyers.torpedo boats (which is where Destroyers came from, because their role was to be "Torpedo Boat Destroyers", hence the name). Unfortunately for both past and present-day battleship enthusiasts, sinking heavy units is exactly what torpedoes are for.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2,8 (click to see context) from:
* Within the community there are those who like carriers, and those that hate them. The ones that hate them complain that carriers are like the [=SPGs=] from World of tanks, and as such, camp at the rear, and are, for the most part, unkillable. Many of these complaints died down as it soon became apparent that unlike [=SPGs=], you can actually do something about a carriers attacks, which includes the following:
** When Torpedo Bombers are sighted, turning towards them, or away from them will allow you to present a smaller target, and increase your chances of not getting hit. At higher tiers however, where all types of aircraft are noticeably faster than their lower tier counterparts, this works if and only if the group of Torpedo Bombers have been shaken by either being engaged by fighters, or a cruiser's Defensive Fire ability when they make their drop. In higher tiers, the best defense against Torpedo Bombers, at least in battleships, is to stick with other battleships and combine the AA firepower, or at the very least have a cruiser or even a high-tier American destroyer that has the Defensive Fire ability escort you.
** Constant maneuvering makes you a difficult target for Dive Bombers to hit, and even if they do hit, the damage can be minimized. However, in general, Dive Bombers don't do enough damage to care about them. This is especially true at lower tiers, when most carrier players don't even know how to use manually-aimed drops.
** Sticking close to a ship that's bristling with anti-air weapons will make you a much less inviting target. Carriers have a limited supply of planes, and a smart carrier player won't throw his planes away.
** Investing in AA skills and modifications for ships with the capability to fire on aircraft. This will increase the range, accuracy, and even damage of those ships when attacking aircraft, and thus make you a less vulnerable target. And if your AA is sufficiently powerful (or in the case of higher-tier cruisers, if you have the Defensive AA Fire consumable active), the attacking aircraft will be disrupted, causing less accurate bomb drops and much wider, more easily avoidable torpedo spreads.
** Actively destroying the aircraft yourself[[note]] You do this by holding ctrl, and clicking on the aircraft you want to target[[/note]]. Even if the planes can make their attack run, the fewer of them that get their bombs or torpedoes off, the less damage you'll take.
** Set the carrier on fire. Doing this will prevent the carrier from launching or recovering the air wing. If you can get close to one, focus it down until either it sinks, or you sink.
** When Torpedo Bombers are sighted, turning towards them, or away from them will allow you to present a smaller target, and increase your chances of not getting hit. At higher tiers however, where all types of aircraft are noticeably faster than their lower tier counterparts, this works if and only if the group of Torpedo Bombers have been shaken by either being engaged by fighters, or a cruiser's Defensive Fire ability when they make their drop. In higher tiers, the best defense against Torpedo Bombers, at least in battleships, is to stick with other battleships and combine the AA firepower, or at the very least have a cruiser or even a high-tier American destroyer that has the Defensive Fire ability escort you.
** Constant maneuvering makes you a difficult target for Dive Bombers to hit, and even if they do hit, the damage can be minimized. However, in general, Dive Bombers don't do enough damage to care about them. This is especially true at lower tiers, when most carrier players don't even know how to use manually-aimed drops.
** Sticking close to a ship that's bristling with anti-air weapons will make you a much less inviting target. Carriers have a limited supply of planes, and a smart carrier player won't throw his planes away.
** Investing in AA skills and modifications for ships with the capability to fire on aircraft. This will increase the range, accuracy, and even damage of those ships when attacking aircraft, and thus make you a less vulnerable target. And if your AA is sufficiently powerful (or in the case of higher-tier cruisers, if you have the Defensive AA Fire consumable active), the attacking aircraft will be disrupted, causing less accurate bomb drops and much wider, more easily avoidable torpedo spreads.
** Actively destroying the aircraft yourself[[note]] You do this by holding ctrl, and clicking on the aircraft you want to target[[/note]]. Even if the planes can make their attack run, the fewer of them that get their bombs or torpedoes off, the less damage you'll take.
** Set the carrier on fire. Doing this will prevent the carrier from launching or recovering the air wing. If you can get close to one, focus it down until either it sinks, or you sink.
to:
* Within From the community there are those who like carriers, and those that hate them. The ones that hate them complain that moment carriers are like were introduced the [=SPGs=] from World of tanks, fandom is split between people who hate CV's and as such, camp at CV mains. The majority of the rear, and are, for the most part, unkillable. Many of these complaints died down as it soon became apparent that unlike [=SPGs=], you can actually do something about a playerbase simply aren't interested in playing carriers attacks, which includes the following:
** When Torpedo Bombers are sighted, turning towards them, or away from them will allow you to present a smaller target, and increase your chances of not getting hit. At higher tiers however, where all types of aircraft are noticeably faster than their lower tier counterparts, this works if and only if the group of Torpedo Bombers have been shaken by either being engaged by fighters, or a cruiser's Defensive Fire ability when they make their drop. In higher tiers, the best defense against Torpedo Bombers, at leastin battleships, is to stick with other battleships and combine the AA firepower, or at the very least have a cruiser or even a high-tier American destroyer game that has the Defensive Fire ability escort you.
** Constant maneuvering makes you a difficult target for Dive Bombersis meant to hit, and even if they do hit, the damage can be minimized. However, in general, Dive Bombers don't do enough damage to care about them. This is especially true at lower tiers, when most carrier players don't even know how to use manually-aimed drops.
** Sticking close to a ship that's bristling with anti-air weapons will make you a much less inviting target. Carriers have a limited supply of planes, and a smart carrier player won't throw his planes away.
** Investing in AA skills and modifications for ships with the capability to fire on aircraft. This will increase the range, accuracy, and even damage of those ships when attacking aircraft, and thus make you a less vulnerable target. And if your AA is sufficiently powerful (or in the case of higher-tier cruisers, if you have the Defensive AA Fire consumable active), the attacking aircraft will be disrupted, causing less accurate bomb drops and much wider, more easily avoidable torpedo spreads.
** Actively destroying the aircraft yourself[[note]] You do this by holding ctrl, and clicking on the aircraft you want to target[[/note]]. Even if the planes can make their attack run, the fewer of them that get their bombs or torpedoes off, the less damage you'll take.
** Set the carrier on fire. Doing this will prevent the carrier from launching or recovering the air wing. If you can get close to one, focus it down until either it sinks, or you sink.gun warships.
** When Torpedo Bombers are sighted, turning towards them, or away from them will allow you to present a smaller target, and increase your chances of not getting hit. At higher tiers however, where all types of aircraft are noticeably faster than their lower tier counterparts, this works if and only if the group of Torpedo Bombers have been shaken by either being engaged by fighters, or a cruiser's Defensive Fire ability when they make their drop. In higher tiers, the best defense against Torpedo Bombers, at least
** Constant maneuvering makes you a difficult target for Dive Bombers
** Sticking close to a ship that's bristling with anti-air weapons will make you a much less inviting target. Carriers have a limited supply of planes, and a smart carrier player won't throw his planes away.
** Investing in AA skills and modifications for ships with the capability to fire on aircraft. This will increase the range, accuracy, and even damage of those ships when attacking aircraft, and thus make you a less vulnerable target. And if your AA is sufficiently powerful (or in the case of higher-tier cruisers, if you have the Defensive AA Fire consumable active), the attacking aircraft will be disrupted, causing less accurate bomb drops and much wider, more easily avoidable torpedo spreads.
** Actively destroying the aircraft yourself[[note]] You do this by holding ctrl, and clicking on the aircraft you want to target[[/note]]. Even if the planes can make their attack run, the fewer of them that get their bombs or torpedoes off, the less damage you'll take.
** Set the carrier on fire. Doing this will prevent the carrier from launching or recovering the air wing. If you can get close to one, focus it down until either it sinks, or you sink.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Needs 6 months since the issue first comes up and more than one side not just complaints.
Changed line(s) 58,59 (click to see context) from:
* Overlapping chronologically with the Naval Training Center/Research Bureau controversy was the announcement that submarines had begun testing and would be added to the game at some later date. Some players were very happy because they'd been wanting subs to be added for a long time, while other players had been dreading the notion of submarines for just as long. And the footage of early test gameplay at Gamescom 2019 only fueled the divide, since the submarines were given speeds (both surfaced and submerged) far in excess of what any of them could achieve in reality, they had active sonar (something no UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarine ever carried) and they're armed with ''guided'' torpedoes. Some players defended this by saying that UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarines with more realistic speeds would be unable to keep up with the surface ships already in the game, while the anti-submarine camp responded by arguing that's exactly why they shouldn't be added.
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to Wargaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship. While Wargaming advertises that the grind is possible without any premium boosters required, the amount of grind needed is so obscenely high and with a timetable so strict (only 30 days!) that even Flamu, one of the players in the 1% of skill level and plays the game for a living as a streamer, declares that even ''he'' can't do it. Even the Gorizia, which is supposed to be obtainable with the devs saying the grind being as much as last year's Prinz Eitel Friedrich, turns out to be [[https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/128028-a-comparison-between-the-grinds-for-prinz-eitel-friedrich-gorizia/ 3-27 times]] as much requirement as the Prinz Eitel Friedrich. In other words, Wargaming '''LIED''' about both ships being absolutely free with no strings attached: You have to either open your wallet or sell your soul before the time limit expires.
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to Wargaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship. While Wargaming advertises that the grind is possible without any premium boosters required, the amount of grind needed is so obscenely high and with a timetable so strict (only 30 days!) that even Flamu, one of the players in the 1% of skill level and plays the game for a living as a streamer, declares that even ''he'' can't do it. Even the Gorizia, which is supposed to be obtainable with the devs saying the grind being as much as last year's Prinz Eitel Friedrich, turns out to be [[https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/128028-a-comparison-between-the-grinds-for-prinz-eitel-friedrich-gorizia/ 3-27 times]] as much requirement as the Prinz Eitel Friedrich. In other words, Wargaming '''LIED''' about both ships being absolutely free with no strings attached: You have to either open your wallet or sell your soul before the time limit expires.
to:
* Overlapping chronologically with the Naval Training Center/Research Bureau controversy was the announcement that submarines had begun testing and would be added to the game at some later date. Some players were very happy because they'd been wanting subs to be added for a long time, while other players had been dreading the notion of submarines for just as long. And the footage of early test gameplay at Gamescom 2019 only fueled the divide, since the submarines were given speeds (both surfaced and submerged) far in excess of what any of them could achieve in reality, they had active sonar (something no UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarine ever carried) and they're armed with ''guided'' torpedoes. Some players defended this by saying that UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarines with more realistic speeds would be unable to keep up with the surface ships already in the game, while the anti-submarine camp responded by arguing that's exactly why they shouldn't be added.
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to Wargaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship. While Wargaming advertises that the grind is possible without any premium boosters required, the amount of grind needed is so obscenely high and with a timetable so strict (only 30 days!) that even Flamu, one of the players in the 1% of skill level and plays the game for a living as a streamer, declares that even ''he'' can't do it. Even the Gorizia, which is supposed to be obtainable with the devs saying the grind being as much as last year's Prinz Eitel Friedrich, turns out to be [[https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/128028-a-comparison-between-the-grinds-for-prinz-eitel-friedrich-gorizia/ 3-27 times]] as much requirement as the Prinz Eitel Friedrich. In other words, Wargaming '''LIED''' about both ships being absolutely free with no strings attached: You have to either open your wallet or sell your soul before the time limit expires.added.
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to Wargaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship. While Wargaming advertises that the grind is possible without any premium boosters required, the amount of grind needed is so obscenely high and with a timetable so strict (only 30 days!) that even Flamu, one of the players in the 1% of skill level and plays the game for a living as a streamer, declares that even ''he'' can't do it. Even the Gorizia, which is supposed to be obtainable with the devs saying the grind being as much as last year's Prinz Eitel Friedrich, turns out to be [[https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/128028-a-comparison-between-the-grinds-for-prinz-eitel-friedrich-gorizia/ 3-27 times]] as much requirement as the Prinz Eitel Friedrich. In other words, Wargaming '''LIED''' about both ships being absolutely free with no strings attached: You have to either open your wallet or sell your soul before the time limit expires.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 59 (click to see context) from:
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to Wargaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship. While Wargaming advertises that the grind is possible without any premium boosters required, the amount of grind needed is so obscenely high and with a timetable so strict that even Flamu, one of the players in the 1% of skill level and plays the game for a living as a streamer, declares that even ''he'' can't do it. Even the Gorizia, which is supposed to be obtainable with the devs saying the grind being as much as last year's Prinz Eitel Friedrich, turns out to be [[https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/128028-a-comparison-between-the-grinds-for-prinz-eitel-friedrich-gorizia/ 3-27 times]] as much requirement as the Prinz Eitel Friedrich. In other words, Wargaming '''LIED''' about both ships being absolutely free with no strings attached: You have to either open your wallet or sell your soul before the time limit expires.
to:
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to Wargaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship. While Wargaming advertises that the grind is possible without any premium boosters required, the amount of grind needed is so obscenely high and with a timetable so strict (only 30 days!) that even Flamu, one of the players in the 1% of skill level and plays the game for a living as a streamer, declares that even ''he'' can't do it. Even the Gorizia, which is supposed to be obtainable with the devs saying the grind being as much as last year's Prinz Eitel Friedrich, turns out to be [[https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/128028-a-comparison-between-the-grinds-for-prinz-eitel-friedrich-gorizia/ 3-27 times]] as much requirement as the Prinz Eitel Friedrich. In other words, Wargaming '''LIED''' about both ships being absolutely free with no strings attached: You have to either open your wallet or sell your soul before the time limit expires.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 59 (click to see context) from:
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to WarGaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship. While Wargaming advertises that the grind is possible without any premium boosters required, the amount of grind needed is so obscenely high and with a timetable so strict that even Flamu, one of the players in the 1% of skill level and plays the game for a living as a streamer, declares that even ''he'' can't do it. Even the Gorizia, which is supposed to be obtainable with the dev say the grind being as much as last year's Prinz Eitel Friedrich, turns out to be [[https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/128028-a-comparison-between-the-grinds-for-prinz-eitel-friedrich-gorizia/ 3-27 times]] as much requirement as the Prinz Eitel Friedrich.
to:
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to WarGaming's Wargaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship. While Wargaming advertises that the grind is possible without any premium boosters required, the amount of grind needed is so obscenely high and with a timetable so strict that even Flamu, one of the players in the 1% of skill level and plays the game for a living as a streamer, declares that even ''he'' can't do it. Even the Gorizia, which is supposed to be obtainable with the dev say devs saying the grind being as much as last year's Prinz Eitel Friedrich, turns out to be [[https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/128028-a-comparison-between-the-grinds-for-prinz-eitel-friedrich-gorizia/ 3-27 times]] as much requirement as the Prinz Eitel Friedrich. In other words, Wargaming '''LIED''' about both ships being absolutely free with no strings attached: You have to either open your wallet or sell your soul before the time limit expires.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 59 (click to see context) from:
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to WarGaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship.
to:
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to WarGaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship. While Wargaming advertises that the grind is possible without any premium boosters required, the amount of grind needed is so obscenely high and with a timetable so strict that even Flamu, one of the players in the 1% of skill level and plays the game for a living as a streamer, declares that even ''he'' can't do it. Even the Gorizia, which is supposed to be obtainable with the dev say the grind being as much as last year's Prinz Eitel Friedrich, turns out to be [[https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/128028-a-comparison-between-the-grinds-for-prinz-eitel-friedrich-gorizia/ 3-27 times]] as much requirement as the Prinz Eitel Friedrich.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 58 (click to see context) from:
* Overlapping chronologically with the Naval Training Center/Research Bureau controversy was the announcement that submarines had begun testing and would be added to the game at some later date. Some players were very happy because they'd been wanting subs to be added for a long time, while other players had been dreading the notion of submarines for just as long. And the footage of early test gameplay at Gamescom 2019 only fueled the divide, since the submarines were given speeds (both surfaced and submerged) far in excess of what any of them could achieve in reality, they had active sonar (something no UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarine ever carried) and they're armed with ''guided'' torpedoes. Some players defended this by saying that UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarines with more realistic speeds would be unable to keep up with the surface ships already in the game, while the anti-submarine camp responded by arguing that's exactly why they shouldn't be added.
to:
* Overlapping chronologically with the Naval Training Center/Research Bureau controversy was the announcement that submarines had begun testing and would be added to the game at some later date. Some players were very happy because they'd been wanting subs to be added for a long time, while other players had been dreading the notion of submarines for just as long. And the footage of early test gameplay at Gamescom 2019 only fueled the divide, since the submarines were given speeds (both surfaced and submerged) far in excess of what any of them could achieve in reality, they had active sonar (something no UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarine ever carried) and they're armed with ''guided'' torpedoes. Some players defended this by saying that UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarines with more realistic speeds would be unable to keep up with the surface ships already in the game, while the anti-submarine camp responded by arguing that's exactly why they shouldn't be added.added.
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to WarGaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship.
* The "[=USS=] Puerto Rico Dumpster Fire" is a trend of outrage that began on December 2019 due to WarGaming's mishandling of their presentation of the new ship.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 58 (click to see context) from:
* Overlapping chronologically with the Naval Training Center/Research Bureau controversy was the announcement that submarines had begun testing and would be added to the game at some later date. Some players were very happy because they'd been wanting subs to be added for a long time, while other players had been dreading the notion of submarines for just as long. And the footage of early test gameplay at Gamescom 2019 only fueled the divide, since the submarines were given speeds (both surfaced and submerged) far in excess of what any of them could achieve in reality, they had active sonar (something no WW2 submarine ever carried) and they're armed with ''guided'' torpedoes. Some players defended this by saying that WW2 submarines with more realistic speeds would be unable to keep up with the surface ships already in the game, while the anti-submarine camp responded by arguing that's exactly why they shouldn't be added.
to:
* Overlapping chronologically with the Naval Training Center/Research Bureau controversy was the announcement that submarines had begun testing and would be added to the game at some later date. Some players were very happy because they'd been wanting subs to be added for a long time, while other players had been dreading the notion of submarines for just as long. And the footage of early test gameplay at Gamescom 2019 only fueled the divide, since the submarines were given speeds (both surfaced and submerged) far in excess of what any of them could achieve in reality, they had active sonar (something no WW2 UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarine ever carried) and they're armed with ''guided'' torpedoes. Some players defended this by saying that WW2 UsefulNotes/WorldWarII submarines with more realistic speeds would be unable to keep up with the surface ships already in the game, while the anti-submarine camp responded by arguing that's exactly why they shouldn't be added.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 56 (click to see context) from:
** To give an idea of how strong the reaction was, the two main 8.5 AA threads about two days took about two days to swell to the combined 500 responses of arguing. The "get a load of this naval training center" thread took only ''8 hours'' to reach this same amount and it was mostly people ''agreeing with each other.'' Little White Mouse made a post calling out Naval Training Center, and it got ''over 100 likes in four hours.'' Most of the debate is centering around if there is anything salvageable from the concept of Naval Training Center, otherwise its the most united the fandom has ever been.
to:
** To give an idea of how strong the reaction was, the two main 8.5 AA threads about two days took about two days to swell to the combined 500 responses of arguing. The "get a load of this naval training center" thread took only ''8 hours'' to reach this same amount and it was mostly people ''agreeing with each other.'' Little White Mouse made a post calling out Naval Training Center, and it got ''over 100 likes in four hours.'' Most of the debate is centering around if there is anything salvageable from the concept of Naval Training Center, otherwise its the most united the fandom has ever been.been.
** Wargaming responded to this controversy by scrapping the Naval Training Center, but replacing it with the [[SuspiciouslySimilarSubstitute Research Bureau]]. It uses the same "regrind lines to get research points" setup, but the idea of buffing ships by regrinding them was discarded. Instead, Research Bureau is used as a method of obtaining new ships, with the first being the Tier X French cruiser ''Colbert'' and the yet to be released second being the Tier X American battleship ''Ohio'' (essentially a ''Montana'' with the triple 406mm guns replaced by twin 457mm, as seen on the Tier IX premium ''Georgia''). Some players are relieved by the "permanent buffs" concept being discarded, and think this is a fair way obtain Tier X premiums. Others think it's not actually that different from permanent buffs, since ''Colbert'' is a very dangerous ship (albeit more suited to damage-farming in Random battles than in winning competitive modes like Ranked and Clan Battles) and at the time of the announcement ''Ohio'' was in testing with stats that made it seem like a straight upgrade over ''Montana'' (though ''Ohio'' was promptly nerfed for the next round of tests). A third group of players dismissed it as a poorly-disguised cash grab, because resetting and grinding through five lines to unlock the Tier X again (or do so with a single line five times) is a very time-consuming process even for dedicated players, so with rather desirable unique ships locked behind the Research Bureau, some players would be inclined to spend large amounts of doubloons (ie real-world money) to convert ship XP into free XP and skip the grind. And since doing so requires ''millions'' of XP, the conversion would involve quite a chunk of doubloons.
* Overlapping chronologically with the Naval Training Center/Research Bureau controversy was the announcement that submarines had begun testing and would be added to the game at some later date. Some players were very happy because they'd been wanting subs to be added for a long time, while other players had been dreading the notion of submarines for just as long. And the footage of early test gameplay at Gamescom 2019 only fueled the divide, since the submarines were given speeds (both surfaced and submerged) far in excess of what any of them could achieve in reality, they had active sonar (something no WW2 submarine ever carried) and they're armed with ''guided'' torpedoes. Some players defended this by saying that WW2 submarines with more realistic speeds would be unable to keep up with the surface ships already in the game, while the anti-submarine camp responded by arguing that's exactly why they shouldn't be added.
** Wargaming responded to this controversy by scrapping the Naval Training Center, but replacing it with the [[SuspiciouslySimilarSubstitute Research Bureau]]. It uses the same "regrind lines to get research points" setup, but the idea of buffing ships by regrinding them was discarded. Instead, Research Bureau is used as a method of obtaining new ships, with the first being the Tier X French cruiser ''Colbert'' and the yet to be released second being the Tier X American battleship ''Ohio'' (essentially a ''Montana'' with the triple 406mm guns replaced by twin 457mm, as seen on the Tier IX premium ''Georgia''). Some players are relieved by the "permanent buffs" concept being discarded, and think this is a fair way obtain Tier X premiums. Others think it's not actually that different from permanent buffs, since ''Colbert'' is a very dangerous ship (albeit more suited to damage-farming in Random battles than in winning competitive modes like Ranked and Clan Battles) and at the time of the announcement ''Ohio'' was in testing with stats that made it seem like a straight upgrade over ''Montana'' (though ''Ohio'' was promptly nerfed for the next round of tests). A third group of players dismissed it as a poorly-disguised cash grab, because resetting and grinding through five lines to unlock the Tier X again (or do so with a single line five times) is a very time-consuming process even for dedicated players, so with rather desirable unique ships locked behind the Research Bureau, some players would be inclined to spend large amounts of doubloons (ie real-world money) to convert ship XP into free XP and skip the grind. And since doing so requires ''millions'' of XP, the conversion would involve quite a chunk of doubloons.
* Overlapping chronologically with the Naval Training Center/Research Bureau controversy was the announcement that submarines had begun testing and would be added to the game at some later date. Some players were very happy because they'd been wanting subs to be added for a long time, while other players had been dreading the notion of submarines for just as long. And the footage of early test gameplay at Gamescom 2019 only fueled the divide, since the submarines were given speeds (both surfaced and submerged) far in excess of what any of them could achieve in reality, they had active sonar (something no WW2 submarine ever carried) and they're armed with ''guided'' torpedoes. Some players defended this by saying that WW2 submarines with more realistic speeds would be unable to keep up with the surface ships already in the game, while the anti-submarine camp responded by arguing that's exactly why they shouldn't be added.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 42 (click to see context) from:
* When the Russian battleship line was announced, opinions were split over if it was a good idea. The pro camp considered it an inevitability given the games Russian origin and were just happy to have new ships. The anti camp pointed out that it breaks a new record for paper ships in a line, with only ''one'' of the new battleships being actually completed.[[note]]And that one, Gangut, is already in the game under a different name.[[/note]] An almost all of the designs that are in the game are incredibly obscure, and only one was really serious. By comparison the previous record holder, France, has three completed battleships and all but one of the paper ships at least have a wikipedia page.
to:
* When the Russian battleship line was announced, opinions were split over if it was a good idea. The pro camp considered it an inevitability given the games Russian origin and were just happy to have new ships. The anti camp pointed out that it breaks a new record for paper ships in a line, with only ''one'' of the new battleships being actually completed.[[note]]And that one, Gangut, is already in the game under a different name.its post-refit form of ''October Revolution'', which is placed one tier higher than Gangut.[[/note]] An almost all of the designs that are in the game are incredibly obscure, and only one was really serious. By comparison the previous record holder, France, has three completed battleships and all but one of the paper ships at least have a wikipedia page.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 55 (click to see context) from:
* The announcement of the "naval training center" (a system where players could regrind lines for cosmetics and, controversially, permanent buffs to ships, is almost a subversion, as it was instantly and almost unanimously despised by the community. There were a few "yay" Sayers though, so let's go over it. The pro side seems to be mostly very high win rate players and community contributors, who argued that it was a great way to give veteran players more reason to keep playing the game. Everybody else though shot back that this system would effectively turn new players and casuals into second class citizens. It's absolutely staggering how many were in the latter camp, with bitter forum rivals suddenly embracing each other and arguing that the idea should be canned immediately.
to:
* The announcement of the "naval training center" (a system where players could regrind lines for cosmetics and, controversially, permanent buffs to ships, is almost a subversion, as it was instantly and almost unanimously despised by the community. There were a few "yay" Sayers though, so let's go over it. The pro side seems to be mostly very high win rate players and community contributors, who argued that it was a great way to give veteran players more reason to keep playing the game. Everybody else though shot back that this system would effectively turn new players and casuals into second class citizens. It's absolutely staggering how many were in the latter camp, with bitter forum rivals suddenly embracing each other and arguing together that the idea should be canned immediately.immediately.
** To give an idea of how strong the reaction was, the two main 8.5 AA threads about two days took about two days to swell to the combined 500 responses of arguing. The "get a load of this naval training center" thread took only ''8 hours'' to reach this same amount and it was mostly people ''agreeing with each other.'' Little White Mouse made a post calling out Naval Training Center, and it got ''over 100 likes in four hours.'' Most of the debate is centering around if there is anything salvageable from the concept of Naval Training Center, otherwise its the most united the fandom has ever been.
** To give an idea of how strong the reaction was, the two main 8.5 AA threads about two days took about two days to swell to the combined 500 responses of arguing. The "get a load of this naval training center" thread took only ''8 hours'' to reach this same amount and it was mostly people ''agreeing with each other.'' Little White Mouse made a post calling out Naval Training Center, and it got ''over 100 likes in four hours.'' Most of the debate is centering around if there is anything salvageable from the concept of Naval Training Center, otherwise its the most united the fandom has ever been.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 54 (click to see context) from:
* The 8.5 change to AA. Instead of the continuous AA randomly, it now hits the same plane over and over again. Que people saying that this killed CV and some people saying that was a good thing. Several threads about all the rage swelled to 300 responses.
to:
* The 8.5 change to AA. Instead of the continuous AA randomly, it now hits the same plane over and over again. Que people saying that this killed CV and some people saying that was a good thing. Several threads about all the rage swelled to 300 responses.500 responses.
* The announcement of the "naval training center" (a system where players could regrind lines for cosmetics and, controversially, permanent buffs to ships, is almost a subversion, as it was instantly and almost unanimously despised by the community. There were a few "yay" Sayers though, so let's go over it. The pro side seems to be mostly very high win rate players and community contributors, who argued that it was a great way to give veteran players more reason to keep playing the game. Everybody else though shot back that this system would effectively turn new players and casuals into second class citizens. It's absolutely staggering how many were in the latter camp, with bitter forum rivals suddenly embracing each other and arguing that the idea should be canned immediately.
* The announcement of the "naval training center" (a system where players could regrind lines for cosmetics and, controversially, permanent buffs to ships, is almost a subversion, as it was instantly and almost unanimously despised by the community. There were a few "yay" Sayers though, so let's go over it. The pro side seems to be mostly very high win rate players and community contributors, who argued that it was a great way to give veteran players more reason to keep playing the game. Everybody else though shot back that this system would effectively turn new players and casuals into second class citizens. It's absolutely staggering how many were in the latter camp, with bitter forum rivals suddenly embracing each other and arguing that the idea should be canned immediately.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:
** Wows Nightly News [[https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/192813-wows-nightly-news-43-ranked-battles-season-twelve/ pointed out]], an unintended consequence of adding [=CVs=] to ranked was the proliferation of inexperienced AA ship players, namely in Worcester, Minotaur, and Grozovois. Aircraft Carriers ended up being not as ubiquitous as people thought they might, be these players have been. Very frequently they do nothing but get devastating striked and ranting at the team for not supporting them. There have been a few cries on the forum to knock it off and play ships you know, but others refuse and keep bringing in AA boats as protest.
to:
** Wows Nightly News [[https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/192813-wows-nightly-news-43-ranked-battles-season-twelve/ pointed out]], an unintended consequence of adding [=CVs=] to ranked was the proliferation of inexperienced AA ship players, namely in Worcester, Minotaur, and Grozovois. Aircraft Carriers ended up being not as ubiquitous as people thought they might, be these players have been. Very frequently they do nothing but get devastating striked and ranting at the team for not supporting them. There have been a few cries on the forum to knock it off and play ships you know, but others refuse and keep bringing in AA boats as protest.protest.
* The 8.5 change to AA. Instead of the continuous AA randomly, it now hits the same plane over and over again. Que people saying that this killed CV and some people saying that was a good thing. Several threads about all the rage swelled to 300 responses.
* The 8.5 change to AA. Instead of the continuous AA randomly, it now hits the same plane over and over again. Que people saying that this killed CV and some people saying that was a good thing. Several threads about all the rage swelled to 300 responses.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:
** Wows Nightly News [[https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/192813-wows-nightly-news-43-ranked-battles-season-twelve/ pointed out]], an unintended consequence of adding [=CVs=] to ranked was to proliferation of inexperienced AA ship players, namely in Worcester, Minotaur, and Grozovoi. Aircraft Carriers ended up being not as ubiquitous as people thought they might, be these players have been. Very frequently they do nothing but get devastating striked and ranting at the team for not supporting them. There have been a few cries on the forum to knock it off and play ships you know, but others refuse and keep bringing in AA boats as protest.
to:
** Wows Nightly News [[https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/192813-wows-nightly-news-43-ranked-battles-season-twelve/ pointed out]], an unintended consequence of adding [=CVs=] to ranked was to the proliferation of inexperienced AA ship players, namely in Worcester, Minotaur, and Grozovoi.Grozovois. Aircraft Carriers ended up being not as ubiquitous as people thought they might, be these players have been. Very frequently they do nothing but get devastating striked and ranting at the team for not supporting them. There have been a few cries on the forum to knock it off and play ships you know, but others refuse and keep bringing in AA boats as protest.
