Mate I see you buying into the Flambass nonsense. That guy was kicked out because of NDA breaches, not for 'criticising Weegee'
IIRC, Flambass
left the program of his own volition; he didn't get kicked out. And he never cited "can't criticize WG" as a reason for his decision to leave. In fact, he explained that he left because he was so tired of being treated like shit and utterly ignored by WG.
and the exact words on that code don't even match to the guy's name.
It did, though? While you could argue that it's merely a coincidence, keeping in mind that this happened
literally the day after he was booted from the CC program and the same day that the whole "whales" URL thing happened, I have a very hard time giving WG any benefit of the doubt.
The idea that WG kicks community contributors for criticizing them is absurd when you remember that, again, they let toxic people sit in the program for years and don't let inactive CCs go even after years of not making WoWS content. 'Criticizing WG' is just cover for fools who got caught red-handed in stupid shit and need an excuse to cover their ass while gathering some 'public sympathy'.
It's not that you can't criticize WG as a CC, but there's definitely limits on how far they can go or how explicit they can be about their criticism. Rather notably, every CC who left (at
any point) expressed how they were glad that they could be a lot more open and pointed in their criticisms of WG afterwards.
Also, WG-RU's fucking clan stats are available on the profile site.
Кланы They are not even close to inactive, and they have a reputation for being Typhoon level players, even considering their absence from recent CB seasons. The idea that they are somehow disconnected from the game is hilarious disinformation.
The idea that WG is somehow disconnected from the game is thoroughly backed by the decisions of their balance team, their communications team, their management, and how they design entire lines of ships. Oh, and don't forget submarines.
> flamu nice
> the guy who literally came up with the term potato
> the guy who spent months harassing people on CIS and barely getting slapped with punishments
Harassing people on CIS? I don't think he even speaks Russian. And it's not like WoWS even has the ability to follow people around beyond a single match.
Also, potato is probably the nicest and least offensive term for a bad or new player I've ever heard of in a competitive game. Hell, we see CCs describe
themselves as potatoes on occasion (or describe their own actions as potatoing).
How out of touch are you? Have you opened anything on Twitch from from those two? Their most viewed clips are of them being verbally abusive towards other players, and all sorts of other bullshit that they got away with for being the biggest CCs in the program. Flambass is also fucking hilarious he spent the whole week screaming on Twitter about abuse and harassment from WG when it was pretty clear he never received any of that sort. (nobody has the right to claim actual mistreatment unless they are LWM). And also, lol Flamu arguments being rock-solid when he's the biggest perpetuator of the 'Russian bias' nonsense ('Tallinn is the best T8 cruiser'!)
Russian bias is a very real thing. It's just most prevalent on premium ships--though newer premium ships tend to have the same kind of "this is just plain better than its competition" problem (intentionally, of course).
But it's not hard to see. German lines are pretty consistently shafted (despite their popularity, though a big part of that is how long most of them have been in the game and the fact that many of their RL counterparts are famous). The Russian battleship line is a joke--the Kremlin has ridiculous armor and hidden armor plates, excellent firepower, low freeboard, good torpedo protection, is incredibly hard to kill, and just outclasses almost all T-10 battleships in the game. Russian Tier 10 and premium cruisers are insane--so much so that Wargaming has to implement artificial limits on how many of them can be fielded in competitive modes because they'd be the bulk of all ships played in those modes otherwise.
The CCs are not a monolithic block no matter how much people want them to be.
I don't think anyone ever argued this? Obviously a program including a bunch of people from different regions of the world are going to have different opinions, different priorities, or different audiences.
No surprise, because the prevailing attitude from the Asian CCs is that they see the CC program as just a means of getting easy access to game products for content creation instead of some privileged status in the community.
That was never really in doubt, though the CC program USED to be about being the bridge between WG and the playerbase, with feedback actually mattering. That went downhill fast years ago, though, and none of the CCs have been under the illusion of having any influence over WG for a long time.
Even then the people all have their own different opinions on the matter, from just wanting to serve the community, and its shameful how much shit people gave them for their opinions. My clan leader's been getting no small amount of hatemail for choosing to stay in the program, and so have quite a few who's discords I've been surfing and interacting with. Its notable that a good chunk of them are just sick of the whole thing and want it to end.
None of the CCs who left endorsed or condoned anyone pressuring other CCs to leave. All the ones I followed explicitly said not to do this, as well. But it's no surprise that some people do it anyway--they probably view this as the very last opportunity to push back against WG's bullshit/direction, and if it ultimately changes nothing, then they'll lose all hope. Desperation and investment can make people do crazy things. It's sad and frustrating regardless, though.
And if you want to talk about CCs upset with monetization - lets get this straight - the aggressive monetization has been, in effect, encouraged by the spending habits of the player base as a whole.
Holy shit,
this is an outrageous take. The thing about predatory monetization is that it is
predatory. It exploits human psychology ruthlessly to squeeze as much money as possible out of as many people as possible, even if it is unsustainable or actively harmful in meaningful and lasting ways to a frightening number of people. Just because a business practice
works (at least in the short-term) doesn't mean that it should be
acceptable or allowed. For example, the tobacco industry is a literal cancer and blight upon human society, providing no good to anyone except the rich owners of tobacco companies whilst inflicting massive and horrific harm to many people. Sure, it's profitable--and it's profitable because it's predatory and exploitative.
It's like arguing that we should just do more oil drilling and use more natural gas because the spending habits of everyone clearly indicate that they like it. Not only does that fundamentally misunderstand the issue, it also completely ignores the horrific long-term consequences of oil and natural gas usage.
Its not necessarily the CCs responsibility or position to care about that the playerbase as a whole buys stuff that those CCs aren't happy to be sold in a way, insofar WG's been scummy about it.
It's almost like the CCs are people who love the game and care about its future, its playerbase, and the wellbeing of said players. It's almost like they aren't all bootlickers who refuse to acknowledge what happens when a gaming publisher starts introducing lootboxes into its games (and especially when it makes things that used to be something you could just buy and forces you to gamble for them).
But yeah, stanning for a company that could not care less about you and will gladly exploit you for as much money as possible in return for the least amount of value (which, having no kind of limited supply, is extra scummy) is your perogative.
So yeah, I'm going to turn the verbal screws on those who are obviously in it for the cash, and I highly suggest you start thinking about why these people say the things they do. Its far from altruistic, and if you think it is I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.
Seeing as quitting the CC program loses them free stuff in the game they play most of the time, as well as early access to ships that will be introduced into the game, I'd say that they ARE quitting the CC program either out of principle or for their own mental health (and doing it all as one because of this being the last, egregious straw that broke the camel's back).
Yes, carriers, the class so balanced that they're banned from competitive play. The class that can hide behind an island in the corner of the map and attack anyone and everyone repeatedly, with impunity, for the entire game. The class that has far better AA than any other class. The class that has automatic damage control that lasts so long and reactivates so quickly that trying to kill a carrier with fires or flooding is pointless. The class that is better at spotting than any other class. The class that benefits from a uniquely shitty mechanic whereby AA guns are easily and permanently destroyed, but planes respawn. The class that generally has enough speed to outrun most battleships in its given tier while also having unlimited range. And the only class in the game that can ALWAYS attack targets from stealth without relying on predicting the enemy's movements well in advance.
And let's not forget how WG trashed the AA of older ships, even ones that were always explicitly supposed to have excellent AA. Remember the Atlanta? Remember how Des Moines was supposed to be something of a no-fly-zone for all but the best carrier players? When looking for good, highly effective AA, you need to look at newer ships, preferably premium ships.
I've not heard these comments uttered in any serious breath for a very long time, and I was a pretty big whiner about DDs 3 months ago.
If "three months" is a very long time for you, I'm not sure what to say. Regardless, it is difficult to argue that destroyers aren't in a difficult spot because a team relies on its DDs so much for essential roles--spotting, capping, and countering other DDs. While carriers can do two of those roles well, carriers can only be in one place at a time, and with three capture points and three or more DDs per match, it's kind of a problem if a given DD can't fulfill those roles. But what makes matters problematic is that DDs are expected to push into cap zones, and their main defensive tool--stealth/smoke--can be negated with the push of a button by a cruiser that is well-equipped to dumpster them with its firepower. Which makes pushing into caps even more difficult/dangerous for DDs. This has a cascading effect--battleships get understandably nervous when they lose destroyer support for spotting and know that the enemy's destroyers are still alive and in the area, so they feel tempted to flee or just stay far back.
Your points about game health I accept, but then I will note that submarine reception is resoundingly mixed moreso than anything else. People are, at least from the high-level streamers/competitive players I've been hearing, mixed on the results, and their final state isn't even fully decided.
The problem is that there just doesn't seem to be any good way to implement submarines into the game (well, in its standard format; Random Battles with submarines would be a shitshow) without making the game a lot worse. Limiting submarines to a specific gamemode designed around them would be a FAR better idea, but WG seems intent on shoehorning them into RB regardless. And since WG has stated that it has no intention of increasing the number of players per team in RB (chances are that it CAN'T, due to their game engine being unable to handle it), it would leave RB in the very unhealthy place of needing to somehow accommodate a fifth class of ship into the game (which already suffers from balance problems where team composition is concerned) without making any more room for that fifth class in the team sizes.
WG has already failed to make carriers fit well into the game while still being fun to play and play against. Throwing submarines into that mix seems like throwing a ton of weight onto a shaky and damaged foundation. Not to mention the incredibly frustrating new scenarios that submarines would make possible for players--how is a battleship supposed to defend against homing torpedoes from submarines AND air attack from carriers while also not giving flat broadside to the battleship that it's already engaged with? How is a destroyer supposed to hunt down a submarine while also dodging constant air attack? How is a submarine supposed to sink (or even survive) a carrier when said carrier has automatic damage control running 45 out of every 60 seconds and enough secondary firepower to kill any submarine up close even without its planes? How is a battleship supposed to deal with an enemy submarine if there aren't any available teammates to spot it, and the sub can just ping the battleship repeatedly?
I don't pretend anyone wanted them in Ranked per-se, I'm just saying that ranked is a reasonable choice,
No, the reasonable choice would be for WG to do its own basic testing and employ its own knowledge of the game (or, failing that, take advantage of the huge wealth of knowledge and experience of its CCs) before forcing it onto its players into a mode it is HILARIOUSLY unsuited for, especially when the class is very much still in development!
I don't think you understand how absurd that decision was. They were forcing the players playing in its ranked mode (as in, the place where people who want to play their very best, against people who also want to do their very best, on a level playing field, in the game they're trying to master) to do basic testing for a whole new class of ship that was so blatantly far from ready for such testing that it was insulting.
Imagine if Blizzard (back in the day) introduced an obviously undertested, underdeveloped 4th race into the game and forced its inclusion into the ranked multiplayer mode. The outrage would have been biblical.
Oh this is definitely true, maplesyrup's been showing bad numbers since the rocket rework. The ability to not be able to land rockets on DDs have frustrated a good chunk of the CV playerbase.
Honestly, carriers SHOULD have a very hard time dealing with destroyers. They were the hardest target to hit IRL, and since WG decided to make carriers extra resistant to other carriers, there really isn't any counterplay against carriers as it is. You'd think battleships would be able to serve in this role, with a friendly CV spotting them, but since CVs can just park behind an island on the far sides of a map, even that isn't really doable.
Given that all a carrier has to do to counter a DD is keep it spotted and watch all of the BBs, Cruisers, and DDs around ruin that DD's day, I'd say not being able to easily dumpster them all the time with rocket planes is more than fair.
