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

[HMS_Kilinowski]

On 11/28/2023 at 6:19 AM, 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"

Ahskance essentially admits that these ships were given bad ASW to nerf them, because they were deemed overpowered. He imo walked right into the trap, cause the whole point of Massa and others is they were removed from sales and put into lootboxes with an extremely low droprate, to make getting them very costly.

So they are expensive because they are overpowered. But that alse means they are charging a high price for a value-defining property and afterwards lower that value, which by definition affects the customers valuation and thus the price they are willing to pay or would have been willing to pay, had they known the ship would get such a nerf in the future.

Edited December 1, 2023 by HogHammer
Descriptive language edit

[Jakob Knight]

1 hour ago, Gillhunter said:

Jakob, sorry, but I don't recall asking you. When the game began the ships were pretty accurate as far as their armament, armor and speed, although they did play arcade style. People seemed to enjoy it. 

 

Well, my apologies for acting like this was a public forum and putting my opinion forwards.  I do suggest if you want a reply from a specific person without public discussion, the use of the private message system would probably be best.

 

[Gillhunter]

2 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

Well, my apologies for acting like this was a public forum and putting my opinion forwards.  I do suggest if you want a reply from a specific person without public discussion, the use of the private message system would probably be best.

 

Well the quote was Wolf’s. But you’re welcome to your opinion of course. If you want to check the specifics on some of the original ships in the game. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, Gillhunter said:

On 11/29/2023 at 9:38 AM, Wolfswetpaws said:

I'm inclined to want whatever the ship was equipped with "in real life".

Of course, this is an arcade game more than a simulation.  😉 

Are you saying that submerged speeds for subs should be what they were "in real life", or are you saying, but it's okay to change them to 3 times what they were "in real life"?

Do I sense a subtle effort to trap me with my own words?  🙂

Example, the USS Massachusetts "in real life" does not have Depthcharge Airstrikes.
She does have paravanes for mine-sweeping, though.
Maybe she "goes fishing" for a Submarine?  🙂 

I think we've had discussions before, wherein you've mentioned your objection to ships and submarines in particular being able to travel faster in-game than they could in real life.
I understand your position.
And, as I see it, if we "go full re....ality, yeah reality, that's what I meant to say, full reality mode", then everything would have to be re-evaluated and the game environment and the ship's capabilities would have to be modeled properly.

Hull speeds, gun ranges, radar no longer functioning through islands, same for Hydro-acoustic search, water conditions would include thermal layers, ships would have noise emanation values which would increase when they increase their speed, limited ammunition and fuel and "supplies", and other factors which I am probably forgetting at the moment would all require a re-work.
Repairs while at sea?  Forget-about-it.
Damage done to a ship could knock-out or degrade its capabilties.
Ships sunk in battle would have to be re-purchased/replaced.
Ships might survive a battle, and then succumb to their damage and sink while enroute back to Port for repairs.
Crew casualties would have to be replaced with recruits or transferred personnel from other Fleet units.


For "simulation" afficionados, this would be welcome.
For those who want to "pew pew pew" and have fast paced fun, reality may not offer much appeal.

Yes, several Submarines in game have underwater speeds which exceed their "in real life" performance parameters.
(Note, the U-2501 is very close to her real life peformance, though.)
And, yes, the ASW environment in-game has more sources of depth-charges (which can be delivered quickly and over the top of an island) than "in real life".

The Developers have chosen "arcade game" instead of "simulation".
As you're aware, I don't work for WG/WOWs.  (But, I mention that, for context purposes and everyone's benefit.)
While I did participate in all of the Submarine Testing phases as a player, and provided multiple forum posts of feedback and answered WG/WOWs surveys, the Developers chose to do things *their way*.

For the moment, they're still in business.  

I'm still playing the game because I'm still having fun, despite the game not always being everything that I would want or prefer or being served-up "my way".  
There are decisions being made by the developers and I have no control over those decisions.
The only real votes I can make are whether or not to play and whether or not I spend money.

Like I mentioned, you and I have had discussions in the past.
For what it is worth, I do like you as a fellow player and a fellow member of the forum.
We exchange our perspectives and I do feel it is constructive to share our sentiments in the open.
We may not always agree, but I'm okay with that.  I'd gladly be on a team with you in-game anytime.  🙂 
 

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, Gillhunter said:

Jakob, sorry, but I don't recall asking you. When the game began the ships were pretty accurate as far as their armament, armor and speed, although they did play arcade style. People seemed to enjoy it. 

I think Tier-1 still offers that appeal.

Everything from Tier-4 and up gets more complex and interesting and less forgiving of mistakes as one advances from Tier-8 to Tier-10 and Super-ships.

[iDuckman]

5 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Assc.. I mean Ahskance essentially admits that these ships were given bad ASW to nerf them, because they were deemed overpowered. He imo walked right into the trap, cause the whole point of Massa and others is they were removed from sales and put into lootboxes with an extremely low droprate, to make getting them very costly.

So they are expensive because they are overpowered. But that alse means they are charging a high price for a value-defining property and afterwards lower that value, which by definition affects the customers valuation and thus the price they are willing to pay or would have been willing to pay, had they known the ship would get such a nerf in the future.

"Walked into it?"  Only in your mind.  He told the truth  Ahsk doesn't spin. 

People complain about balance.  Well, this is how a ship is balanced.  If one area is too strong you nerf something.  You seem to have a problem with that.  Tell us what it is.

Now, suppose they didn't nerf the whatever and when it proved to strong they withdrew it.  According to you, it would be to make money** by putting it in lootboxes.  Nice trap you've constructed.  WeeGee is damned if they nerf something and damned if they don't.  Then you can blame the CMs for it.

Do you lie awake at night thinking this [moose hockey] up?

 

** Gasp!  Horror!!

[_Kokushibo_]

6 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Assc.. I mean Ahskance essentially admits that these ships were given bad ASW to nerf them, because they were deemed overpowered. He imo walked right into the trap, cause the whole point of Massa and others is they were removed from sales and put into lootboxes with an extremely low droprate, to make getting them very costly.

So they are expensive because they are overpowered. But that alse means they are charging a high price for a value-defining property and afterwards lower that value, which by definition affects the customers valuation and thus the price they are willing to pay or would have been willing to pay, had they known the ship would get such a nerf in the future.

Wasn't that always the usual way to promote the sales: release an OP/broken ship, remove it later due to being too popular, nerf it through global changes, make it available through lootboxes/auction etc, keep promoting it as it is something absolutely broken and "unique". At some introduce another gimmick and repeat the above steps with the next ship for sale.

I've heard tales about the legendary Graf Zeppelin, Flint and Blyskawica. These days I cannot but laugh at the people that bought ships like Musashi (5km ASW btw) for exorbitant prices, only to be farmed in Randoms by the "cv+sub" meta.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

49 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

"Walked into it?"  Only in your mind.  He told the truth  Ahsk doesn't spin. 

People complain about balance.  Well, this is how a ship is balanced.  If one area is too strong you nerf something.  You seem to have a problem with that.  Tell us what it is.

Now, suppose they didn't nerf the whatever and when it proved to strong they withdrew it.  According to you, it would be to make money** by putting it in lootboxes.  Nice trap you've constructed.  WeeGee is damned if they nerf something and damned if they don't.  Then you can blame the CMs for it.

Do you lie awake at night thinking this [moose hockey] up?

 

** Gasp!  Horror!!

Balancing at WG does take into account the popularity of the ship, and does take into account the monetization strategy. Let's not pretend that these aren't factors.

For those who are outraged by that, let me remind you that this is a game in the free2play / pay2win business. OF COURSE the game is going to have dodgy balancing...that is a core feature of the business strategy.

Enjoy the game that is on offer...because WG is not going to make the gameplay equitably balanced like an e-sport game. That isn't the business WG wants to be in...and they don't have the skill to do that anyway.

Consider this a plea to have appropriate expectations for the game.

[Gillhunter]

7 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Do I sense a subtle effort to trap me with my own words?  🙂

Example, the USS Massachusetts "in real life" does not have Depthcharge Airstrikes.
She does have paravanes for mine-sweeping, though.
Maybe she "goes fishing" for a Submarine?  🙂 

I think we've had discussions before, wherein you've mentioned your objection to ships and submarines in particular being able to travel faster in-game than they could in real life.
I understand your position.
And, as I see it, if we "go full re....ality, yeah reality, that's what I meant to say, full reality mode", then everything would have to be re-evaluated and the game environment and the ship's capabilities would have to be modeled properly.

Hull speeds, gun ranges, radar no longer functioning through islands, same for Hydro-acoustic search, water conditions would include thermal layers, ships would have noise emanation values which would increase when they increase their speed, limited ammunition and fuel and "supplies", and other factors which I am probably forgetting at the moment would all require a re-work.
Repairs while at sea?  Forget-about-it.
Damage done to a ship could knock-out or degrade its capabilties.
Ships sunk in battle would have to be re-purchased/replaced.
Ships might survive a battle, and then succumb to their damage and sink while enroute back to Port for repairs.
Crew casualties would have to be replaced with recruits or transferred personnel from other Fleet units.


For "simulation" afficionados, this would be welcome.
For those who want to "pew pew pew" and have fast paced fun, reality may not offer much appeal.

Yes, several Submarines in game have underwater speeds which exceed their "in real life" performance parameters.
(Note, the U-2501 is very close to her real life peformance, though.)
And, yes, the ASW environment in-game has more sources of depth-charges (which can be delivered quickly and over the top of an island) than "in real life".

The Developers have chosen "arcade game" instead of "simulation".
As you're aware, I don't work for WG/WOWs.  (But, I mention that, for context purposes and everyone's benefit.)
While I did participate in all of the Submarine Testing phases as a player, and provided multiple forum posts of feedback and answered WG/WOWs surveys, the Developers chose to do things *their way*.

For the moment, they're still in business.  

I'm still playing the game because I'm still having fun, despite the game not always being everything that I would want or prefer or being served-up "my way".  
There are decisions being made by the developers and I have no control over those decisions.
The only real votes I can make are whether or not to play and whether or not I spend money.

Like I mentioned, you and I have had discussions in the past.
For what it is worth, I do like you as a fellow player and a fellow member of the forum.
We exchange our perspectives and I do feel it is constructive to share our sentiments in the open.
We may not always agree, but I'm okay with that.  I'd gladly be on a team with you in-game anytime.  🙂 
 

I would never try and trap you. You do a good job of that on your own.😄

I'm quite aware that the developers have chosen arcade over simulation and I'm fine with that. Arcade didn't mean that the ships couldn't be accurate. You may recall that they were early on.  If you remember they delayed the British ships because they had difficultly getting the information to model them from the British government.

The game has gone full "Star Wars" which disappoints me.

I would team up with you anytime also. Have a great day.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Gillhunter

[Pugilistic]

There is an argument in progress about the appropriate range for something battleships couldnt do.

We truly play a fantasy game. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Pugilistic said:

There is an argument in progress about the appropriate range for something battleships couldnt do.

We truly play a fantasy game. 

I mean...we have entire lines of ships that are mostly fantasy...

We've been in the fantasy world for many years now.