Pugilistic Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 8 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Yuro was right when he pointed out that the CV rework was really intended to rework the playerbase... Ah yes, the Playerbase ReworkTM 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted February 23 Author Share Posted February 23 15 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Submarines now have a more difficult time sinking their opponents, while most of their opponents now have an easier time of sinking submarines or at least surviving a submarine's attack(s). Arguably subs were and still are OP. And as I pointed out, none of the key issues were definitively addressed. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Meanwhile, Submarines are nerfed to cater to a portion of the playerbase. 🤔 Oh gosh Wolfie.... Subs simply were so poorly developed they "broke" all sorts of game standard that can not be reclaimed.... They simply were rushed for profit. They really need their own modes of play. Cause, they are a hot topic and a hot mess. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3LUE Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 12 hours ago, Andrewbassg said: I kept saying (and warning) about the wrongness in Wedgie's plan to dumb down the game, to transform it into just another "crappy shooty arcadiy boat game", in order to appeal to the masses, while alienating the dedicated ,long standing players, who would actually support the game. Removing the elements which set his game apart from other ones, soviet sovcom style refusal to address long standing issues of the game( "you didn't see graphite coz its not there!!") in many cases outright treating us with clear and visible contempt and the list can go on and on..... Well... the playerbase's quality took an enormous hit. as a result of their idiocies masquerading as cleverness, their laziness and their down looking upon us by ignoring ALL the well intended feedback, reasonable critique and good willed advice. GG WEEGEE....... These are the people WG is dumbing down the game for. The ones who have just started and the ones who have thousands of games played yet have zero common sense and low self awareness. Edited February 23 by 3LUE 4 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yedwy Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 @OP ofc its working, was there ever any doubt it would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 10 hours ago, Andrewbassg said: Arguably subs were and still are OP. And as I pointed out, none of the key issues were definitively addressed. 9 hours ago, Asym said: Oh gosh Wolfie.... Subs simply were so poorly developed they "broke" all sorts of game standard that can not be reclaimed.... They simply were rushed for profit. They really need their own modes of play. Cause, they are a hot topic and a hot mess. Submarines were easily sunk. And now, they're more easily sunk. Thus a portion of the playerbase is being catered to. 🙂 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clammboy Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 5 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Submarines were easily sunk. And now, they're more easily sunk. Thus a portion of the playerbase is being catered to. 🙂 I have to respectfully disagree with you here wolf about subs being easily sunk and now more easily sunk. Also it must have been a really large portion of the player base that was not happy with subs to have them actually make changes to there pet project. Sorry to disagree with you my good friend it's one of the only things I don't see eye to eye on with you. Edited February 23 by clammboy 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 4 minutes ago, clammboy said: I have to respectfully disagree with you here wolf about subs being easily sunk and now more easily sunk. Also it must have been a really large portion of the player base that was not happy for them to actually make changes to there pet project. Sorry to disagree with you my good friend it's one of the only things I don't see eye to eye on with you. I can understand and respect the civil disagreement on this issue, while remaining friends. 🙂 4 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakob Knight Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 18 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: And those same players still scream bloody murder because "Wargaming never listens to feedback". This is what they wanted; this is what they got. Obviously, the fault is in the Hardware. Probably got it from some scavenger in the desert.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said: Obviously, the fault is in the Hardware. Probably got it from some scavenger in the desert.... Did you read the original 2000AD comic strip that film was based on? Because I got a hell of a shock when I watched the film and realized instantly. Edited February 23 by Ensign Cthulhu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 11 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said: Obviously, the fault is in the Hardware. Probably got it from some scavenger in the desert.... Quote Uncle Owen : [to Jawa] Hey, what are you trying to push on us? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/characters/nm0114436?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t10 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HogHammer Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 I really try to keep out of these sorts of conversations. I'd rather sit back and eat my popcorn. While I do at times agree with some of the sentiment expressed - what WG (WoWs) is doing wrong - this is one period of time since I've been playing that I am giving a little slack to WG (a wait-and-see attitude, so to speak). So this is just my opinion. World of Warships recently announced adjustments/buffs/nerfs across the board that will affect the game. This is, without a doubt, looking forward, perhaps the biggest change to the game. While I believe this is overdue, I, for one, welcome it and fully realize it will take time and numerous patches. And even when complete, I imagine that there will be adjustments once they have enough data to support any additional changes. There is an element of truth in nearly everyone's statements here. What it boils down to is perhaps the different experiences each player has in the game. Regarding subs. When I jump into a game, I go into it wanting to win. If our sub does a good job and contributes, believe me, I'll give them a compliment. A win is a win, period. What I think people remember most, however, is that damn red sub that causes havoc. Do subs and CVs need some adjustment? Absolutely. But this also begs the question, why did my team's sub or CV do badly? Both sides have, as a general sentiment, overpowered classes of ships - one just used it much better. The same holds true for aircraft carriers - and really, perhaps to a lesser degree, all classes of ships in the game. If you think about it, it really comes down to a large degree of individual players' skill in the very same ships offered to everyone. The overall lack of addressing training/rushing players to higher tiers is perhaps my biggest issue with WoWs. So, I for one, am willing to take a step back and see what happens this year with all of the announced changes. Even with all the upcoming changes, I suspect some will still have issues with subs and carriers. So here's hoping, in the meantime, I have the best CV and sub-player on my side and don't have to endure my team's sub-player watching the fish swim by the entire game. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakob Knight Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 51 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: Did you read the original 2000AD comic strip that film was based on? Because I got a hell of a shock when I watched the film and realized instantly. No, though I heard of it. The film had the feel of a developed world you never really got to see, so it doesn't surprise me. The final scene matched that song so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: Did you read the original 2000AD comic strip that film was based on? Because I got a hell of a shock when I watched the film and realized instantly. Which comic strip is that? Also relevant, perhaps, is the movie "Cherry 2000" where a character hires a salvage expert to retrieve a new body for his favorite android. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092746/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Submarines were easily sunk. And now, they're more easily sunk. Thus a portion of the playerbase is being catered to. 🙂 I am with @clammboy and respectfully disagree with you as well.... Here's the rub: "a portion" of the population wanted subs (20% as a guess) and a much larger segment did not want subs.... So, the spent a lot of money and time giving 20% of the game population what the wanted and at the same time, lost revenue from the other 80% of the game population: uninstalling; retiring; not spending a cent; lost a respect for our host with the dissolution of team damage; and, lost the respect from players whom are just exhausted from gimmicks.... Not a winning solutions I'd say; by catering to 20% of the game population and losing the respect of 40-50% of those players against subs. I am sorry we don't see eye-to-eye on this topic.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 43 minutes ago, Asym said: I am with @clammboy and respectfully disagree with you as well.... Here's the rub: "a portion" of the population wanted subs (20% as a guess) and a much larger segment did not want subs.... So, the spent a lot of money and time giving 20% of the game population what the wanted and at the same time, lost revenue from the other 80% of the game population: uninstalling; retiring; not spending a cent; lost a respect for our host with the dissolution of team damage; and, lost the respect from players whom are just exhausted from gimmicks.... Not a winning solutions I'd say; by catering to 20% of the game population and losing the respect of 40-50% of those players against subs. I am sorry we don't see eye-to-eye on this topic.... Yeah, we don't see eye-to-eye on this. And that's okay. Still a WW-II naval game without Aircraft Carriers and Submarines seems boring to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 12 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Yeah, we don't see eye-to-eye on this. And that's okay. Still a WW-II naval game without Aircraft Carriers and Submarines seems boring to me. What about a.... WW1 game? OR a pre-dreadnaught game? Facing all those fishing trawlers, wouldn't it be an exciting opportunity? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakob Knight Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 15 hours ago, Asym said: Oh gosh Wolfie.... Subs simply were so poorly developed they "broke" all sorts of game standard that can not be reclaimed.... They simply were rushed for profit. They really need their own modes of play. Cause, they are a hot topic and a hot mess. I wouldn't call the extended period of testing and revision Subs went through 'rushed for profit'. I think it is more that they had reached the point where the mechanics were close enough to balanced that WG decided more time wouldn't contribute measurably to what they needed to go any further. Now that they have had the live testing in actual game matches, they are continuing the adjustment process, though I think they are going too far in the anti-Sub direction to appease the portion of the player base who will never be appeased and will have to either adjust the other direction later or accept Subs as support units that teams will have to understand are not intended to do more than fire support. I also want to make note of something I keep seeing. There seems to be a concept still running around the community that it is a bad thing that Subs are difficult to kill. That is in error. Subs, just like any other unit in the game, are expected to be survivable and hit with their weapons. Anything else would be evidence that the unit in question is not performing to standards and would require significant buffs to adjust it so it both survives an expected amount of time in game and does similar damage to other unit types when it is expected to do so. Those who think they need easy kill mechanics for Subs or should not be significantly hit by Subs need to reevaluate their concept of the game. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 4 hours ago, HogHammer said: But this also begs the question, why did my team's sub or CV do badly? Both sides have, as a general sentiment, overpowered classes of ships - one just used it much better. I read this ^^^ and I'll take a whack at why I see "any dissimilar weapons system" as a causation of failures..... We've expanded the maps into three dimensional constructs and did not change or increase the size of the maps..... I call this the "Billy Mitchel" effect. We changed the game culture without training or equipping the culture.... (Laws of Complexity....) In doing so, we massively changed the "required education" of all players and that has never been addressed ! Take what happened right after update 8.0 was released and where there were videos of formations of ships trying to "circle the wagons" to defend themselves against torpedo planes.... But, all that did was make a bigger target; which, was easily exploited by Carrier drivers since AA is a joke and was not increased to match the dimension of use change!!! AA had to be "exponentially better" to offset the planes abilities to "cause change" to a complex system... If planes are "aimed" systems, AA has to be an Aimed system ! And, here we are today. That sold carriers and ruined the actual game.... Complex systems are touchy things! Especially, in how "cultures" accept change.... A very large portion of players negatively reacted (remember Culture Trumps process 100% of the time !)..... Some players simply "get it" based on practice and the rest of the game culture negatively reacts because our ships, simply don't have the "tools" (AA Radar - Proximity munitions - Radar controlled AA - designating what to attack first) to balance the system ! You can't mess with the Laws of Complexity...... Just my opinion and the topic of discussion at many Universities that teach "Innovation"..... Cause, Innovation is most often disruptive or destructive when it hits complex systems.... Edited February 23 by Asym 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 9 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said: I wouldn't call the extended period of testing and revision Subs went through 'rushed for profit'. I think it is more that they had reached the point where the mechanics were close enough to balanced that WG decided more time wouldn't contribute measurably to what they needed to go any further. Now that they have had the live testing in actual game matches, they are continuing the adjustment process, though I think they are going too far in the anti-Sub direction to appease the portion of the player base who will never be appeased and will have to either adjust the other direction later or accept Subs as support units that teams will have to understand are not intended to do more than fire support. I also want to make note of something I keep seeing. There seems to be a concept still running around the community that it is a bad thing that Subs are difficult to kill. That is in error. Subs, just like any other unit in the game, are expected to be survivable and hit with their weapons. Anything else would be evidence that the unit in question is not performing to standards and would require significant buffs to adjust it so it both survives an expected amount of time in game and does similar damage to other unit types when it is expected to do so. Those who think they need easy kill mechanics for Subs or should not be significantly hit by Subs need to reevaluate their concept of the game. I see you point and would like you consider how a complex system reacts to change. We play the game on small, time compressed maps.... Line-of-Sight (LOS) warfare is the speed at which our small, time compressed maps work without making the game even more complex.... Adding Subs, in our small maps, added a new level of "complexity;" which, that game culture has yet to adapt to or, in my case, wants to adapt to.... Add in planes, an we are seeing all sorts of "cultural rejection;" because, Cultures trump process 100% of the time.... It's not that subs or planes are "bad"......they were in the World Wars ! But, our small maps can not contain the complexity both systems bring with them ! We are seeing the "Billy Mitchel" effect ! He was right, got punished for being right, and the world the old regime knew was gone ! This game is pushing what can be accepted..... Too many mind.....equals chaos...and, chaos changes the willingness to try new things......and, the game loses players whom simply don't want more levels of complexity to a game that simply ignored what would happen if.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 @Jakob Knight ' they had reached the point where the mechanics were close enough to balanced'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted February 23 Author Share Posted February 23 3 hours ago, HogHammer said: Even with all the upcoming changes, I suspect some will still have issues with subs and carriers. S Absolutely. Because none of the proposed changes actually solve anything. They don't tackle the actual and very pressing problems. In fact they create even more, different problems, while not doing anything. The proposed Cv changes are quite asinine. Don't get me wrong, I want Cv spotting addressed, badly, but these changes won't do the trick. instead they will drove Cv players away. I mean..... they wont see. I'm kept talking about and listing the problems, because, like I said, nobody can solve a problem if doesn't fully understand it, including its ramifications. I was asked to present actual solutions and I intend to get there. If i wanted to just bash..... yeah nope.... Cv's : - spotting removed (preferably altogether). The technical solution is actually very simple and already exists. Institute a delay( like with radar) and then raise that delay to the duration of the match. Once the LOS is broken, purge the buffer for this command. ( it is VERY unsophisticated but it will do the trick) - Institute modules (and the possibility to take dmg to them) for the Cv's plane producing mechanism. There are ~3 kind of planes, so three modules, in a similar manner as surface ships have, including the reload trick ( it will go a LOONG way towards (1) ) - Institute the possibility to take dmg to the flight deck, again as a module. - restrict Cv's to see only =/+1 in MM. It is impossible to balance AA if they can see -2/2 tiers. With the added benefit of opening the possibility to introduce odd tier Cv's aka moar moneyz. 🙂 - Remove Auto ASW. These solutions will address the conflicts (most, if not all) related to (1) (5) (6). Ah ....it is work ? Well... I'm sorry How badly they want to get the game back on track? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clammboy Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 40 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Still a WW-II naval game without Aircraft Carriers and Submarines seems boring to me. Here is my take on this, CVs were here when I joined and I knew that so I am ok with them. Subs were introduced much later in the game and kind of shoved down our throats. I have mixed views on subs maybe it will change after some of the balance changes right now not a fan. But I don't want to whine about them here in game or down vote all sub players. Here I am just expressing my opinion there not a deal breaker for me. I will figure them out I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakob Knight Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 6 minutes ago, Asym said: I see you point and would like you consider how a complex system reacts to change. We play the game on small, time compressed maps.... Line-of-Sight (LOS) warfare is the speed at which our small, time compressed maps work without making the game even more complex.... Adding Subs, in our small maps, added a new level of "complexity;" which, that game culture has yet to adapt to or, in my case, wants to adapt to.... Add in planes, an we are seeing all sorts of "cultural rejection;" because, Cultures trump process 100% of the time.... It's not that subs or planes are "bad"......they were in the World Wars ! But, our small maps can not contain the complexity both systems bring with them ! We are seeing the "Billy Mitchel" effect ! He was right, got punished for being right, and the world the old regime knew was gone ! This game is pushing what can be accepted..... Too many mind.....equals chaos...and, chaos changes the willingness to try new things......and, the game loses players whom simply don't want more levels of complexity to a game that simply ignored what would happen if.... The problem with your analysis is the the two ship types in question did not significantly change the map dynamics from what it has always been. CVs have always been part of the game, as have their abilities of traveling, spotting, and damaging enemy units. The maps are pretty much the same space they have always operated in. What changed was their rate of damage production (going for damage over time instead of high alpha strikes) and the control interface (first person as opposed to RTS). While that opened CV use to a greater number of players due to better similarity with other ship types in the game, it did not alter their effects on the battle space. Subs, by comparison, have been made slower than other unit types in the game, making their effect on the battle space even less than that of a Destroyer. A Sub only manages to participate in battles with their teammates because their starting positions are forward of any other unit, or they would lag behind many of their teammates and arrive after enemy units had already engaged. The complexity added by Subs is really no different from a new series of lines of DDs, which we've had happen many times in the lifetime of the game, with their own mechanics and gimmicks. Each has required a change to how players enter and conduct battles, and this would not change had Subs not been introduced...only the particular tactics and countertactics would have been different. So, I'm afraid I have to disagree that CVs and Subs have increased the complexity or reduced the battle space of the game any more than other types of ships have and would. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 CV's have always been part of the game, but it was the RTS CV's that were part of the system that the game mechanics were fitted in. Since the CV rework, you could say the game dropped to about 50 percent optimization. Following the sub introduction, we dropped further down, let's say to the 25 percent level. These are obviously placeholder values, the devs should have an exact idea about what the situation is like, but as a player I'm getting about 25 percent out of this game compared to what I was getting prior to January 2019. 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