kriegerfaust Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) Carriers have more than enough weapons, Torpedoes - Rockets - Bombs HE - Bombs AP now with future smoke and redacted (stun bombs) do they need mines. I think they should give them to ships this could add a lot of cruisers that would not be competitive in the game lacking torpedoes or enough guns to make them playable. It could be fun a risk reward of rushing to the cam laying a minefield and then running away, still what do you think do mines belong in the game should they be place on planes or ships or both. Cruisers could be layers while destroyers would act more as sweepers which could be fun a new destroyer cruiser dynamic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdiel-class_minelayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-class_minelayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brummer-class_cruiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Adventure_(M23) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_cruiser_Pluton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_minelayer_Okinoshima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_minelayer_Tsugaru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_training_ship_Brummer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Deutschland_(1914) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSwMS_Älvsnabben_(M01) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Agamemnon_(M10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Terror_(CM-5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Angora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Tokiwa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Bayan_(1900) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amur-class_minelayer_(1898) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Catskill_(LSV-1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Angora Edited January 19 by kriegerfaust 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invicta2012 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 They've been tested as part of the Support CV testing and people didn't like the implementation. I can't say I did either. I'm a fan of the idea of ship-dropped, rather than plane-dropped, mines, as I think they might offer some opportunities for stealth play and open up possibilities for new lines. But the playerbase reaction to this type of thing does tend to be quite fierce. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriegerfaust Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 (edited) http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/cl/ru/minelayer-cl-700-vy/cruiser-minelayer.htm http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/cl/ru/minelayer-cl-700-vy/ml-cl-plan.jpg http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/cl/ru/minelayer-cl-700-vy/ml-cl1.jpg https://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/minelayer/minelayer/tech.html The problem is the game is already passive enough at high levels now a push can have you killed by mines as well as subs and torpedoes. I think ship mines would be very different as you risk your own neck in order to set a minefield in front of the enemy meaning you have ti guess more where the enemy will go. Or force the enemy to slow down instead of rushing a point, still tanks for posting maybe they will try mines again as a ship weapon. Edited January 19 by kriegerfaust 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmo_2 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 IMO, mines are another bad addition to this game. CV's with mines can remove an escape path from a ship being hunted by a sub or destroyer, or just drop mines directly in front of a ship(s) anywhere on the map. Ships with mines will bait poor players to YOLO rush to drop them, and they will likely die faster than poor players in subs and destroyers. I don't care to protect poor players from themselves exactly, but why give them yet another way to highlight it and negatively affect other players? The effective duration of deployed mines could mitigate their negative impact on game play a bit, but I don't see any increased value in implementing them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe_trueno Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 mines won't improve the game at all, They are just another middle finger in a long list of middle fingers to close range combat. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Well, we've encountered mines before, in Operation Dynamo. There they fit very well, but... nobody in their right mind starts a fight in a minefield.... 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 "And they called it a mine" You all know the proper vehicle for mine laying in this game would be Submarines. What about trading shotgun for mines? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invicta2012 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 3 hours ago, kriegerfaust said: The problem is the game is already passive enough at high levels now a push can have you killed by mines as well as subs and torpedoes. I think ship mines would be very different as you risk your own neck in order to set a minefield in front of the enemy meaning you have ti guess more where the enemy will go. Or force the enemy to slow down instead of rushing a point, still tanks for posting maybe they will try mines again as a ship weapon. It depends on how the much damage the mines do, how they are laid and how they can be detected / defended against. The problem with plane dropped mines was that the answers were 1) too much, 2) too tightly and 3) not very well - the CV planes just dropped minefields of an equal depth/density on or near other players, which didn't give an opportunity to defend. It wasn't great. 2 hours ago, desmo_2 said: Ships with mines will bait poor players to YOLO rush to drop them, and they will likely die faster than poor players in subs and destroyers. True, but WoWs is a school of hard knocks. We've all had that game when we discovered how dangerous radar is, or how to defend against planes.....and not noticing a Brummer or Abdiel on the other team is the player's fault. Equally... Abdiel would give up quite a lot for that sucker's trick. She's hella quick, but lightly gunned and armoured for a cruiser. A bad player who couldn't manage their detection safely would get hammered. And there are adjustments which could be made - something like the density of minefield depending on the speed at which it was launched (the lower the speed, the tighter the field), and mines being detectable by hydro. Just now, ArIskandir said: You all know the proper vehicle for mine laying in this game would be Submarines. Not a bad idea at all. ASW mines are also definitely a possibility. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 5 hours ago, kriegerfaust said: how do people feel about mines By kriegerfaust Carriers have more than enough weapons, Torpedoes - Rockets - Bombs HE - Bombs AP now with future smoke and redacted (stun bombs) do they need mines. I think they should give them to ships this could add a lot of cruisers that would not be competitive in the game lacking torpedoes or enough guns to make them playable. It could be fun a risk reward of rushing to the cam laying a minefield and then running away, still what do you think do mines belong in the game should they be place on planes or ships or both. Cruisers could be layers while destroyers would act more as sweepers which could be fun a new destroyer cruiser dynamic. <snip> Mines are okay for Seagull memes. Air-dropped mines were tested, months ago. Player reception was mixed, at best, in my understanding. More "realistic" for Submarines to have optional mine-laying loadouts, perhaps. But, not a reliable method of deployment (because of the need to predict opponent's movements). Maybe some odd-tiered submarines could be configured to use mine-laying with a trade-off being torpedo-tube usage. Example: Submarine can either load mines or torpedo into a specific tube (and can switch, but not quickly). Or, the configuration is chosen while in port and the submarine's armament loadout can be chosen by the player (certain tubes will load mines and certain tubes will load torpedoes, which cannot be changed during a battle). The risk/reward aspect of a ship having to be sneaky and lay mines at the risk of being detected and coming under-fire has an understandable appeal. I figure something could be brain-stormed and tested. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) 29 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: "And they called it a mine" You all know the proper vehicle for mine laying in this game would be Submarines. What about trading shotgun for mines? I subscribe to the "A-R-15-dot-com" notion of "Why not both?" 🙂 Specifically, a submarine having the capability to perform "shotgun" and "mine-laying" attacks is appealing, to me. Side-note: I'm really tired of people complaining about shotgun attacks, because I know it takes risk to get into a viable position to do so (or is a desperation tactic because the submarine is already surrounded and about to be sunk anyway). With the exception of a couple of submarines, most "dumb-fire" torpedoes (with the correspondingly more potent warheads) have a short range, in-game. Thus, one has to "get close" to a target (on purpose, or by getting ambushed, or whatever). Risk/reward aspect of play, in my opinion. If people don't want to be "shotgunned" then do a better job of ASW along with their team-mates. "Git Gud" and play better. 🙂 I've lost count of the ships I've sunk with torpedo attacks (while sailing DD's and Submarines) because the target sailed in a predictable manner for too long and didn't zig-zag. Edited January 19 by Wolfswetpaws 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin_Simpleton Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 18 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: The risk/reward aspect of a ship having to be sneaky and lay mines at the risk of being detected and coming under-fire has an understandable appeal. I figure something could be brain-stormed and tested. If we are adding mine laying there should be mine sweepers. If more and more ways to inflict dmg are added to this game, I feel there will be fewer players willing to endure the learning curve to be good enough to enjoy this game. More effort needs to be put into developing teamwork and ways to communicate. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriegerfaust Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 (edited) I believe half the issue with mines is people hate no loathe carriers so starting on a bad footing. That means unless submarines had to give up dumb or guided torpedoes, or launchers then no one is going to want to give submarines another weapon. As for submarines and destroyers getting themselves killed to lay mines, well destroyers are suicidal by nature. Its just how they are played as ambush hunters they have to get into position which means running into other ships of the same class being spotted and being blasted by the entire enemy team. Laying mines would encourage them to be more cautious and stay unseen to seed their mine field. As for minesweepers the trouble is real minesweepers are small usually under or just over a thousand tons and poorly armed usually with just one or two main guns at three to four inches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSwMS_Clas_Fleming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_minelayer_Hatsutaka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douwe_Aukes-class_minelayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNoMS_Frøya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra-class_minelayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_minelayer_Shirataka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_minelayer_Yaeyama https://destroyerhistory.org/flushdeck/dm/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Smith-class_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleaves-class_destroyer http://www.navsource.org/archives/11/08idx.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORP_Gryf_(1936) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Willem_van_der_Zaan_(ML-2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azio-class_minelayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_minelayer_Lepanto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Willem_van_der_Zaan_(ML-2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mijnenlegger_I Edited January 19 by kriegerfaust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Well true... now that you mention it, mines start looking downright affable on their own... 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 32 minutes ago, Justin_Simpleton said: If we are adding mine laying there should be mine sweepers. If more and more ways to inflict dmg are added to this game, I feel there will be fewer players willing to endure the learning curve to be good enough to enjoy this game. More effort needs to be put into developing teamwork and ways to communicate. Every ship can be a minesweeper, at least once. 😉 Fun trivia, the USS Massachusetts battleship museum has her "paravanes" (used for mine-sweeping) still aboard. While I agree with you about improving teamwork, I also recognize that each player is going to decide for themselves (how much effort they put into teamwork behavior). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethervox Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 I'd feel 'hurt' by a mine if my ship brushed up against one. Placing mines in the game? No. In operations, possibly. Having Minesweepers in WoWS? Not going to happen - this ship class would be like a T0 (or a T1, at best). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wulf_Ace Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 weapons that you cant see until they hit you hard? we already have that in game. submarines 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derf Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 since the question was asked - i am against them & not because all the additional little red dots on the screen caused graphics problems for many players, but 'causde they are a stupid attempt to force something new into the game that does not help. also how exciting...send a plane out, drop the mines, wait for 45 seconds for them to arm, see if you catch anything. the steeper and more painful you make the learning curve in this game the fewer new players will stick with it leading to inevitable population decline . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Every ship can be a minesweeper, at least once. 😉 Fun trivia, the USS Massachusetts battleship museum has her "paravanes" (used for mine-sweeping) still aboard. While I agree with you about improving teamwork, I also recognize that each player is going to decide for themselves (how much effort they put into teamwork behavior). Oh-Kay, NO......... There comes a point in time when the whole "teamwork" shtick simply isn't valid anymore.... I'm done listening to it because it's a false flag argument... And, this really isn't aimed at you...... Consider: we play on small, time compressed, extremely terrain contained maps. We are playing in the "Fulda Gap" with ships... Consider: we don't have SONAR. Heck, we don't have Chaff or Anti-Radar tools they had in WW2. Consider: we can't even defend ourselves from planes, let alone mines; because, AA is simply broke and mines on terrain contained maps simply break movement. Again, we are playing on WOTS maps. Sub inclusion only made the "surface" deeper to contain subs (and, that is why they are having all sorts of geometry issues !) Uniform height and depth. Consider: we aren't a "team based" game at all..... NO ONE IS IN COMMAND. It's a cooperative, arena level shooter without skill progression..............WHICH MEANS, that if you put 12 or 15 ships together, no one is in charge and that means no one's can have a plan. It's, this game, an arena FPS at it's root. So, we all need to stop with the team babbling.... POF, if mines are laid in a narrow channel, how are you going to "clear it???" Consider: We now have "One ship to rule them all". And, if you doubt that, explain why they are excluded from ANY upper level event? Consider: our maps have "one depth/height..." anywhere you sail. How in the H*LL does that 1) make any sense and 2) what does that say if we are discussing mines or even AA??? Consider: Anti-Sub mines can or can not hit ships (cause we have one depth on our maps>?) Can subs implode? Consider: the era of the "Golden Bobble" is coming. The "Golden Straw" are snorkels... Here, buy this and not have to surface... Look I am sorry for being, sounding angry..... It's not on you mate ! It's just too much. I'm done. I'm on a walkabout for a while.... Edited January 19 by Asym 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriegerfaust Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 Consider: we can't even defend ourselves from planes, let alone mines; because, AA is simply broke and mines on terrain contained maps simply break movement. (Just allow two or more AA envelopes to overlap and you will tear through planes like they are made of tissue paper, that you want to hide behind an island alone or go of rogue is not the games fault) 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 2 hours ago, Justin_Simpleton said: If more and more ways to inflict dmg are added to this game, I feel there will be fewer players willing to endure the learning curve to be good enough to enjoy this game. 33 minutes ago, derf said: the steeper and more painful you make the learning curve in this game the fewer new players will stick with it leading to inevitable population decline In my opinion, this above is the "pain point"... any new addition to the existing mechanics is likely to be a net negative, it would be yet another mechanic to learn. It really doesn't matter that much if it is "good" or "bad", it is more baggage to carry and the weight is already uncomfortably heavy for many players. Monetization of the game is in dire need of a rework, it can't be sustained by adding more and more content (as new mechanic and variables) to the mix. It is unsustainable. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriegerfaust Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 (edited) maybe wow and wow classic that's world of warship not world of warcraft lol and how would they change monetization charge for skin lol that's already in the game, what can they charge for that they are not already charging for. and change can not mean just not charge real money and a subscription would kill the game dead, they already have a battle pass- campaign, what do they charge for entire tiers or split tiers. Edited January 19 by kriegerfaust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin_Simpleton Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 I keep being encouraged by WG to bring in new players to the game and I think they are trying to capture shares of the gaming community. I'm trying to find a way to connect with other players on a more personal level and ideally, face to face. If this type of communication was facilitated, then I could bring in new players and discuss strategies at the VFW and make arrangements to play at the same time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invicta2012 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 2 hours ago, Justin_Simpleton said: If we are adding mine laying there should be mine sweepers. Almost all DDs can be minelayers or mine sweepers. They might have to give up their ASW and a deck gun (or two) but they're an easy vehicle. How minesweeping works in game, I don't know - the WoWs game world is about the ways in which distance and time based action can be believably compressed, so it would require some serious work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 22 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said: maybe wow and wow classic that's world of warship not world of warcraft lol and how would they change monetization charge for skin lol that's already in the game, what can they charge for that they are not already charging for. and change can not mean just not charge real money and a subscription would kill the game dead, they already have a battle pass- campaign, what do they charge for entire tiers or split tiers. WoT has F2P, Premium time, and something called WoT plus these days. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 14 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said: and how would they change monetization charge for skin lol that's already in the game, what can they charge for that they are not already charging for. and change can not mean just not charge real money and a subscription would kill the game dead, they already have a battle pass- campaign, what do they charge for entire tiers or split tiers. I think they can and should lean more heavily on PvE/Hybrid modes. They can monetize mission packs/campaigns/scenarios oriented for Solo play and/or small Cooperative teams (so filling player queues is not a problem). Also a rework of Shipyards (sort of Shipyard-on-demmand), making it more flexible and letting players build past ships could be more attractive for players. The game doesn't need more content (ships, gimmicks), it needs more (and fun) ways to use the existing content in the way of Game modes. Also specific Game modes can let you segment the content on more easy to diggest bits for the players, making it easier to actually add newer content. For example, a "Convoy Escort" Game mode would open the door to include Submarines and Escort vessels (Frigates, Corvettes, etc) in an organic and properly balanced way, without messing with existing modes like Randoms. Re thinking the role (and monetizing) low tiers would open the door to adding Pre-Dreadnought ships, there are lot of those and they don't need new mechanics to be implemented. There's a lot that can be done regarding game modes and ways to monetize that. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now