Official word from WG regarding ASW range discrepancies (injustice) for some ships is that all is OK

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

Official word from WG regarding ASW range discrepancies (injustice) for some ships is that all is OK... ☹️

https://discord.com/channels/669128285527080961/1176882228878389308/1176882228878389308

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[Admiral_Karasu]

Since I, or any other normal person can't really be bothered to wade through the muddy waters that Discord is, I'll take your synopsis and be happy with that.

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

16 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Since I, or any other normal person can't really be bothered to wade through the muddy waters that Discord is, I'll take your synopsis and be happy with that.

Ahskance [NA] essentially wrote that bad ASW was given to those ships (for example Massachusetts) because they are strong in other areas... IMHO that is very very bad idea and "solution"...

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

Ahskance [NA] essentially wrote that bad ASW was given to those ships (for example Massachusetts) because they are strong in other areas... IMHO that is very very bad idea and "solution"...

 

Leo "Apollo11"

It is an incredibly bad idea because ASW is only useful for exactly one purpose. I mean, how the hell do they even think they can theoretically balance the subs if the level of ASW on the surface ships is, to put it mildy, wildly inconsistent. We currently have an 'interesting' meta, where no ship is equipped to deal with the CV's, whereas the ships that most typically would not make first contact have the best tools to deal with the subs.

[YouSatInGum]

Some may forget this, but originally Smaland and Friesland were supposed to get "special" ASW because on the stuff on the models was rationalized as being for that (such as rockets on deck).  Much later after sub release, the most "special" thing about those two ships is that ASW depth charges are weaker than other nations....  or maybe it was the DC shot forward a 1km....  Speshul!

 

One thing you can generally count on with WG is whatever decision involves the least amount programming work.... is always the best decision for game play/balance too.  Funny how it always that way.

Edited November 28, 2023 by YouSatInGum

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Why do we persist in believing that WG prioritizes game balance over other things? This is clearly not the case.

The game is a meme arcade...not much more.

[Admiral_Karasu]

24 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Why do we persist in believing that WG prioritizes game balance over other things? This is clearly not the case.

The game is a meme arcade...not much more.

That, and maybe the fact that the way they balance things is screwed up in itself.

[GMMF]

Yurra is 100% correct, they can nerf the ASW damage & flooding/fire chance of their depth charges, but nerfing the range and make them literally defenseless against subs? It is dumb design. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by GMMF

[Nevermore135]

Blame the GC affair.

WG doing funny things with ASW airstrike ranges is the devs’ ham-fisted attempt to balance overperforming “protected” ships on the spreadsheet. It’s still bad design, because you instead produce ships that are still overperforming in certain cases and woefully vulnerable in others, but it balances the numbers, so *shrug*.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Frostbow]

2 hours ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Ahskance [NA] essentially wrote that bad ASW was given to those ships (for example Massachusetts) because they are strong in other areas... IMHO that is very very bad idea and "solution"...

Truly a mediocre solution, one that reeks of laziness and utter lack of creativity.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, GMMF said:

Yurra is 100% correct, they can nerf the ASW damage & flooding/fire chance of their depth charges, but nerfing the range and make them literally defenseless against subs? It is dumb design. 

Beyond 6 km, the Submarine is likely to be using its periscope or may even remain on the surface, where it is vulnerable to main-gun and sec-bat projectiles.

As for the "balanz" argument by WG/WOWs, Massachusetts being an example, I'm trying to devote myself to "what the game is" instead of devoting myself to wishing for the game to "be what I want it to be" in some cases.  And this is one of those cases.

I play all ship types.  And the proliferation of Depthcharge Airstrikes is above & beyond what I suggested (as feedback) during the years long, record-setting testing of Submarines.
But, hey.  At the end of the day, "It is what it is", eh?  🙂 

[Tpaktop2_1 NA]

3 hours ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

Ahskance [NA] essentially wrote that bad ASW was given to those ships (for example Massachusetts) because they are strong in other areas... IMHO that is very very bad idea and "solution"...

 

Leo "Apollo11"

Its bad enough to RNG all the ship modules, but now they are going to nerf ASW on selected ships because they are too strong? This is Syndrome ideology from the Incredibles. Syndrome had said he will become an instant hero, a legend, when he will sell his inventions to the public so everyone can be a superhero. Then Syndrome quoted the best line that can be used for WoWS: "When everyone is super, no one will be." This is what I see WG doing to WoWS. They are making ships so unrealistically even that not one WoWS player can complain.  The old fallback is "Game Balance" I got news for them, the world is not like that. There will always be a bad*ss in WoWS.

 

3 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

It is an incredibly bad idea because ASW is only useful for exactly one purpose. I mean, how the hell do they even think they can theoretically balance the subs if the level of ASW on the surface ships is, to put it mildy, wildly inconsistent. We currently have an 'interesting' meta, where no ship is equipped to deal with the CV's, whereas the ships that most typically would not make first contact have the best tools to deal with the subs.

As they rushed in subs into WoWS, they are doing the same for their game balances.  I agree with you.

[GMMF]

40 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Beyond 6 km, the Submarine is likely to be using its periscope or may even remain on the surface, where it is vulnerable to main-gun and sec-bat projectiles.

Do note that there are BBs with 5km airstrikes, which is even shorter. I am sure that subs will both use ping torpedoes outside 5km as well as not getting spotted when at periscope depth. 

Besides this, not having enough range means that those ships cannot support their allies who are getting hunted by subs or allies that are hunting the sub. So when subs activate their sub surveillance, a JB can do nothing to support his sub while enemy normal BB can dunk his airstrike. 

I do not see the need to defend WG when it comes to subs, after all they are the bunch of people that says shotgunning is hard to pull off and then gets shotgunned on stream.

Edited November 28, 2023 by GMMF

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, GMMF said:

Do note that there are BBs with 5km airstrikes, which is even shorter. I am sure that subs will both use ping torpedoes outside 5km as well as not getting spotted when at periscope depth. 

Besides this, not having enough range means that those ships cannot support their allies who are getting hunted by subs or allies that are hunting the sub. So when subs activate their sub surveillance, a JB can do nothing to support his sub while enemy normal BB can dunk his airstrike. 

During Submarine testing, it occurred to me that Submarines encourage teamwork.  Now, I still subscribe to that notion.

Depth-charges, gun fire and ramming are classic ASW options.

Want to keep your team's submarine afloat?  Help them sink the ships that threaten them.
Jean Bart is a fast BB and has good main-gun range, even if it's afflicted with wonky dispersion.  Shoot red-team ships that are trying to sink your team-mates.  🙂 

[New_Jersey_prpr]

Making surface ships feel painful when dealing with subs is mainly how WG encourages people to play submarines, so they definitely will protect submarine along with its game concept.

Submarine design is broken all the time, it shouldn't be introduced into PVP modes at the very beginning, any submarine related balance problems will be solved when there's no submarine.

[GMMF]

26 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Want to keep your team's submarine afloat?  Help them sink the ships that threaten them.

Then why other BBs can sink other ships while still able to use airstrikes beyond 5km? You can't damage the sub without using airstrikes while they are lower than periscope depth. 

A common theme of sub engagement is where both subs activate their sub surveillance and expect teammates to flood the ocean with airstrike. A JB cannot airstrike when she's beyond 5km nor she can rush into the middle of ocean and shoot down everyone's plane, so how is she going to contribute? Sink everyone within minutes? She cannot even "teamwork" in this case.

It's a joke when they use the term "strong ships" to decide whether a ship deserves to get normal airstrike or not, is Lenin weaker than Massa? Or are Bourgogne, Mecklenburg weaker than Ohio? There's no clear standards when it comes to this, just simply "stronger in other aspects". Bourgogne is a complete upgrade over JB so why is she consider weak in this logic. There's 0 sense. I really should have shove those words on their face in discord but I hate digging old threads up. 

Until WG mention their standards with stats & numbers backing their claim, I suggest not to buy their logic on this topic.

Edited November 28, 2023 by GMMF

[Nevermore135]

28 minutes ago, GMMF said:

It's a joke when they use the term "strong ships" to decide whether a ship deserves to get normal airstrike or not, is Lenin weaker than Massa? Or are Bourgogne, Mecklenburg weaker than Ohio? There's no clear standards when it comes to this, just simply "stronger in other aspects". Bourgogne is a complete upgrade over JB so why is she consider weak in this logic. There's 0 sense. I really should have shove those words on their face in discord but I hate digging old threads up. 

Most of this ships with these features are on the “naughty list” (Massachusetts, Jean Bart, Musashi, GC, etc.). They were removed from regular availability for over-performing, and the airstrike ranges are poor attempts to rein them in (especially those that are made available every Black Friday). For Ohio, I always saw it as trying to get ahead of the need to implement balance changes, as she isn’t in the same “protected” class as the other ships.

Regarding JB vs. Bourgogne, one is a tier IX, the other is a tier X. It’s not important how the ships compare to each other, but how they compare to other ships of the same tier.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[GMMF]

Are Georgia and Lenin not the same case? Is JB that broken compared to her peers? With what claim? What stats? What evidence collected from which server? 

No clear reason at all, the fact that no WG staff even bothers to respond to Yurra's second comment on the discord thread means that they took the L. Oh, and one of the response use Agincourt without AA as a reason, Agincourt without AA is historical and can be reason with such, while airstrike is a complete fictional feature by WG and each ship's airstrike stats is dictated by WG.

[New_Jersey_prpr]

29 minutes ago, GMMF said:

Until WG mention their standards with stats & numbers backing their claim, I suggest not to buy their logic on this topic.

WG's balancing is mostly based on a "I think" logic, just count how many ship "buffs" are just undoing the nerfs WG gave them before.

[Nevermore135]

7 minutes ago, GMMF said:

Are Georgia and Lenin not the same case? Is JB that broken compared to her peers? With what claim? What stats? What evidence collected from which server? 

Are you actually expecting WG to release any of this information? I, nor anyone else, can answer the question why some of the ships that are no longer available were balanced via ASW and others were not. The logical assumption would be that those ships with short ASW range were larger outliers than the others. The entire premise is still deeply flawed (per my post above), but that’s apparently the way the gurus of the spreadsheet at WG think.

It should be noted, though, that Massachusetts and Jean Bart have B versions that are regularly available, while Musashi is apparently popular auction bait. There is some logic to applying these ranges to ships WG intends to release in limited numbers in this way to limit their impact.

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[GMMF]

3 minutes ago, New_Jersey_prpr said:

WG's balancing is mostly based on a "I think" logic

And with that logic, after they read this, Georgia & Lenin will have their airstrike nerfed to 5km. Instead of JB & Massa getting buffed to normal standards.

[GMMF]

3 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Are you actually expecting WG to release any of this information? I, nor anyone else, can answer the question why some of the ships that are no longer available were balanced via ASW and others were not.

You can't, nor WG will. So using the reason of over performance is flawed and should not be entertained. Any attempts to stand with WG in this case can be countered by what I said.

I highly welcome WG staff to come over to Asia and try JB/Ohio in random and get hunted by our avid 2501/Gato owners and see their reactions.

Edited November 28, 2023 by GMMF

[Nevermore135]

2 minutes ago, GMMF said:

I highly welcome WG staff to come over to Asia and try JB/Ohio in random and get hunted by our avid 2501/Gato owners and see their reactions.

I don’t think anyone in this thread is defending WG’s decision to balance these ships via their ASW range. I most certainly am not, so this is entirely irrelevant as far as I am concerned, as well as missing the point.

I will say again: it’s a bad method of balancing these ships. WG isn’t making these decisions based on the quality of the player experience. They are making them based on the average numbers returned by the spreadsheet.

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Beyond 6 km, the Submarine is likely to be using its periscope or may even remain on the surface, where it is vulnerable to main-gun and sec-bat projectiles.

As for the "balanz" argument by WG/WOWs, Massachusetts being an example, I'm trying to devote myself to "what the game is" instead of devoting myself to wishing for the game to "be what I want it to be" in some cases.  And this is one of those cases.

I play all ship types.  And the proliferation of Depthcharge Airstrikes is above & beyond what I suggested (as feedback) during the years long, record-setting testing of Submarines.
But, hey.  At the end of the day, "It is what it is", eh?  🙂 

It's a gimmick.

(ASW airstrikes.)

[aleksi111]

This is Wedgie

The given explanation is moving goalpost mounted on figet spinners, what they gave as reason today will be different come 2024 when/if they feel need to adress it again