Meanwhile in Russia.......

[I_cant_Swim_]

46 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

If some one spots something that's beyond your view range, you'd only see it on the mini map.

In the case that an ally spots something beyond my spotting range, IMO, even better would be to see a fuzzy shape on the map. An approximate position so I can't wipe out a broadside cruiser at 22 km with the first salvo from my Kansas.

[Admiral_Karasu]

6 minutes ago, I_cant_Swim_ said:

In the case that an ally spots something beyond my spotting range, IMO, even better would be to see a fuzzy shape on the map. An approximate position so I can't wipe out a broadside cruiser at 22 km with the first salvo from my Kansas.

Yes.. the only thing that would worry me is the gimmicky 'target lock' WoWS has, and the corresponding change in accuracy and dispersion.

Apart from that, I'd be happy to be firing at coordinates and fuzzy shapes myself.

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

5 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Look, when I read posts worded like yours, I get the impression that situation is more of a player coping-skills issue than a game issue.
The game isn't perfect.  People aren't perfect.  I think we can agree upon that much?  🙂 

I simply keep reading people's posts and keep getting the impression that "accepting what is" and calmly making an effort to determine the best possible course of action for whatever ship I'm playing is better for my mental health than getting upset about a game not behaving like a Burger King commercial and serving-up yummy food prepared "my way".  🙂 

I dont really know how player skill has anything to do with getting spotted by a BS broken game mechanic, its just like saying every player getting dumpstered by CVs and subs every game suck and aren't "skilled enough" to avoid those things.

So, in your mind if something comes up there is just bad skill on the players behalf? Like WG telling everyone getting dumpstered by CVs and Subs to "Just dodge", you misplayed if you suffer.

"Accepting what is" might be ok in another game that works pretty well but has some minor bugs or flaws that isn't really game breaking, but its hard to have that acceptance with a company like WG that seems to wanna double down on every crappy decision, every new crappy game mode (that NONE of the playerbase seem to understand) and "miscommunication" they do.

This could be a great game, if they just could fix some of the things the "vocal minority" (not to be mistaken for the "silent majority" that WG apparently has stuck in a desk drawer), like Subs, CVs and plane spotting for example. Thats why its hard to just sit silent and accept everything just because WG said "all is good".

[Project45_Opytny]

Unrelated to the original post but still related with the topic ("news from Russia").

Lesta studio has just teased... perhaps the most controversial additions to WoWS/Mir Korabli ever just now, after all those praises and cheers they have received in all the recent months.

Supership submarines, B-4 (of the Project 641 Foxtrot-class, a participant of the naval confrontations during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis) of Soviet Union, and U-796 of Germany.

[Wolfswetpaws]

40 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

I dont really know how player skill has anything to do with getting spotted by a shitty broken game mechanic, its just like saying every player getting dumpstered by CVs and subs every game suck and aren't "skilled enough" to avoid those things.

So, in your mind if something comes up there is just bad skill on the players behalf? Like WG telling everyone getting dumpstered by CVs and Subs to "Just dodge", you misplayed if you suffer.

"Accepting what is" might be ok in another game that works pretty well but has some minor bugs or flaws that isn't really game breaking, but its hard to have that acceptance with a company like WG that seems to wanna double down on every shitty decision, every new shitty game mode (that NONE of the playerbase seem to understand) and "miscommunication" they do.

This could be a great game, if they just could fix some of the things the "vocal minority" (not to be mistaken for the "silent majority" that WG apparently has stuck in a desk drawer), like Subs, CVs and plane spotting for example. Thats why its hard to just sit silent and accept everything just because WG said "all is good".

Coping skills aren't the same as skill in sailing one's ship. 
Coping skills are more of a mental attitude and mental health thing instead of a golf swing thing.
How well one copes with a situation, mentally.

The game is the game.
Its features and mechanics, whether we like them or not, *are* published in official WOWs wiki pages and in several youtube videos.
The game's changes are published in dev-blogs and change-logs.

But, in a given battle at a given moment, we work with what we've got.
Just like NASA worked with what they had in order to salvage the Apollo 13 mission and bring the crew home after a major equipment malfunction.

Apollo 13.  1995  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/

And remember there are 23 other players in a normal random battle, each of whom contributes their own seasonings to the stew metaphorically created from how the battle goes from start to finish.
Victory is not assured, but neither is defeat.  🙂 

[Andrewbassg]

17 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Supership submarines, B-4 (of the Project 641 Foxtrot-class, a participant of the naval confrontations during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis) of Soviet Union, and U-796 of Germany.

 

Not really surprising, given their IRL reliance on the type....

 

Still, I'm eagerly  waiting.......

"Also, although the Foxtrot was larger than a Zulu class submarine, the Foxtrot class had 2 of its 3 decks dedicated to batteries. This gave it an underwater endurance of 10 days, but the weight of the batteries made the Foxtrot's average speed a slow 2 knots (3.7 km/h) at its maximum submerged time capability".

...howz they gonna explain dis away..... 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxtrot-class_submarine

 

Gonna be a funny reading for sure.....

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, MrWastee said:

so, i'm curious.... by given what is given, how could that look like?

My half baked idea is to have ships spotting range (the range at which they see enemies) be uniform for the tier.

Ships which need better 'concealment', like DDs, etc...have maluses to the dispersion of ships shooting at them.

This gets rid of the whole binary spotted / invisible silliness and changes the meta considerably...ships can more easily push because torpedo threat is more certain, but DD survivability would improve when under fire.

Things like radar would add bonuses to a ships dispersion, rather than act as a spotting tool.

Such a major change would need considerable balancing work and tweaking to make work though. The amount of work required would make this relatively unattractive if the dev teams are busy.

[Project45_Opytny]

20 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

 

Not really surprising, given their IRL reliance on the type....

 

Still, I'm eagerly  waiting.......

"Also, although the Foxtrot was larger than a Zulu class submarine, the Foxtrot class had 2 of its 3 decks dedicated to batteries. This gave it an underwater endurance of 10 days, but the weight of the batteries made the Foxtrot's average speed a slow 2 knots (3.7 km/h) at its maximum submerged time capability".

...howz they gonna explain dis away..... 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxtrot-class_submarine

 

Gonna be a funny reading for sure.....

 

That's... simple?

Judging from a number of other sources, this sentence seems to state that "maximum submerged endurance can only be reached by crawling at 2kts".

And this game has never ever cared about ships' endurance parameters.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Project45_Opytny

[Andrewbassg]

5 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

That's... simple?

Judging from a number of other sources, this sentence seems to state that "maximum submerged endurance can only be reached by crawling at 2kts".

Except there is no such mechanic in wows. There is battery usage, but is not tied to movement related power usage.

And.......for sure they won't make them idk... overly weak.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

18 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Except there is no such mechanic in wows. There is battery usage, but is not tied to movement related power usage.

And.......for sure they won't make them idk... overly weak.

I think the point is that they will just make the parameters up to fit the vision they have for the ship in the meta.

[Andrewbassg]

8 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I think the point is that they will just make the parameters up to fit the vision they have for the ship in the meta.

Yes! And I'm gonna have fun reading 'em 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

56 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Coping skills aren't the same as skill in sailing one's ship. 
Coping skills are more of a mental attitude and mental health thing instead of a golf swing thing.
How well one copes with a situation, mentally.

The game is the game.
Its features and mechanics, whether we like them or not, *are* published in official WOWs wiki pages and in several youtube videos.
The game's changes are published in dev-blogs and change-logs.

But, in a given battle at a given moment, we work with what we've got.
Just like NASA worked with what they had in order to salvage the Apollo 13 mission and bring the crew home after a major equipment malfunction.

Apollo 13.  1995  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/

And remember there are 23 other players in a normal random battle, each of whom contributes their own seasonings to the stew metaphorically created from how the battle goes from start to finish.
Victory is not assured, but neither is defeat.  🙂 

So basically, you're saying we should just accept every BS thing WG could possibly throw at us without any objection, because they "Communicate" (as well as they can) in dev blogs and website. 

None of us should have any issue with this because look at the "really bad" (looking anxiously at moderators ...) situation the Apollo 13 crew had to deal with. I agree with you, compared to what they went thru, plane spotting in a warship game kind of pales in comparison.

I just gotta ask, do you get angry/upset over anything .... like ever?! Please tell me what!

Edited December 1, 2023 by OldSchoolGaming_Youtube

[Andrewbassg]

 

53 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

My half baked idea is to have ships spotting range (the range at which they see enemies) be uniform for the tier.

Ships which need better 'concealment', like DDs, etc...have maluses to the dispersion of ships shooting at them.

This gets rid of the whole binary spotted / invisible silliness and changes the meta considerably...ships can more easily push because torpedo threat is more certain, but DD survivability would improve when under fire.

Things like radar would add bonuses to a ships dispersion, rather than act as a spotting tool.

What I see problematic is the lack of balancing factor, the fact that different ships have different sizes, have different dispersion characteristics and arguably the whole gunnery mechanics should then be tossed out. I mean the whole shebang including airdrag and whatnot.

53 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

the whole binary spotted / invisible silliness 

 I think this one should be addressed like I_cant_ Swim_...

2 hours ago, I_cant_Swim_ said:

In the case that an ally spots something beyond my spotting range, IMO, even better would be to see a fuzzy shape on the map. An approximate position so I can't wipe out a broadside cruiser at 22 km with the first salvo from my Kansas.

...mentioned. Like you've said ,the binary appearance is indeed silly .

Edited December 1, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

15 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

What I see problematic is the lack of balancing factor, the fact that different ships have different sizes, have different dispersion characteristics and arguably the whole gunnery mechanics should then be tossed out. I mean the whole shebang including airdrag and whatnot.

I never said it would be a simple change...

...and yes, balancing would require a lot of work.

But we are at the point with spotting where further bandaids just aren't ever going to put us in a good state, IMO.

It's why I'm not all that interested in minimap only spotting...I don't see it making the game better, just different.

[Crokodone]

20 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

 

 

So..... the thing that was most requested about Cv's, Korably will actually test it out. Namely  MINIMAP ONLY SPOTTING!  

 

This fact makes clear how much Wedgie was gaslighting the playerbase, and for how long. They pretended (for years!!) that it was tested (and found "inadequate" , but... if it was tested, there would not be a need for a second round of testing. So yeah......Wedgie is full of it. And not just a little. Waay above the neck.

All that barking about playing against Cvs being "fair and balanced", also "fun and engaging".......yeah....

And people still wonder, why many players don't trust, nor believe, when Wedgie makes "statements"  and why many  players read the Q&A's or Devblogs  just for the giggles and lmaos....

 

Thank your for your decadence, because this opens the door for the other (fair and engaging) aspect of spotting: DDs. Not to mention l, such a nerf would most inevitably usher in a trillium of buffs in the form of damage... How would you like to recall the old Tiny Tim nuking? Or the invisible flying Shimakaze? I'll stick with that aerial spotting if I were a DD/SSK player.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Crokodone

[Andrewbassg]

3 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

I'll stick with that aerial spotting if I were a DD/SSK player.

 Except I'm not. Btw....wazz SSK? 

6 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

because this opens the door for the other (fair and engaging) aspect of spotting: DDs

Arguably dd's take risks while Cv;s ...don't. And your argument would hold merit IF Cv less games wouldn't exist. But they do and the game is perfectly playable without them. 

7 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

How would you like to recall the old Tiny Tim nuking? Or the invisible flying Shimakaze? I'l

Why is inevitable? Also I think you forgot  about a certain British T8 Cv also a T10 italian one. 

13 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Not to mention , such a nerf....

Now, that's actually a good point, because Cv;s indeed get bonuses for spotting and that should be explored further as how to compensate such a loss in revenue. 

 

[Crokodone]

4 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

If plane spotting isn't so bad then why not just let all radarcruiser be able to throw out their radar wherever they like on the entire map even if their ship isn't there. Its no big deal....

Because the Game's a celebration of 20th century Naval warfare and a virtual museum at the same time. It's incredulous to believe this is simply MMORPG like World of Warcraft or other fantasies. WG has made billions and gained world renown around the world for understanding that. You think these guys are tired of making money?

[Crokodone]

37 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

 Except I'm not. Btw....wazz SSK? 

Your not familiar with Submarines... Are you??

37 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Arguably dd's take risks while Cv;s ...don't. And your argument would hold merit IF Cv less games wouldn't exist. But they do and the game is perfectly playable without them. 

Nonsense, CV's are at extraordinary risk, and unlike most classes have it in multiple spectrums: physical, tactical, and information; failure in any results in lost teammates. Just because you don't understand a class doesn't mean it's abstract.

37 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Why is inevitable? Also I think you forgot  about a certain British T8 Cv also a T10 italian one. 

Because WoWs is a game about contribution to a battle. Information is and has always been a major key aspect to CVs; take that away WG has to give them something to keep their contribution relevant to the team and battle.

37 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Now, that's actually a good point, because Cv;s indeed get bonuses for spotting and that should be explored further as how to compensate such a loss in revenue. 

 

Not just CVs but DDs and Subs do too; occasionally BBs. The game is allot more dynamic than just spotting, or damage.

2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

 

Not really surprising, given their IRL reliance on the type....

 

Still, I'm eagerly  waiting.......

"Also, although the Foxtrot was larger than a Zulu class submarine, the Foxtrot class had 2 of its 3 decks dedicated to batteries. This gave it an underwater endurance of 10 days, but the weight of the batteries made the Foxtrot's average speed a slow 2 knots (3.7 km/h) at its maximum submerged time capability".

...howz they gonna explain dis away..... 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxtrot-class_submarine

 

Gonna be a funny reading for sure.....

 

No ship in history could sustain flank speed for the entire duration of a battle: ever; unless nuclear powered. If you read the book "Blind Man's Bluff" you'd know diesel sub limitations when in contact with the adversary was/is why the USN never went back to Diesel Electric Submarines.

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Coping skills are more of a mental attitude and mental health thing instead of a golf swing thing.

...

And remember there are 23 other players in a normal random battle, each of whom contributes their own seasonings to the stew metaphorically created from how the battle goes from start to finish.
Victory is not assured, but neither is defeat.  🙂 

A golf swing is all about "tuned muscle memory with a mental focus on the elimination of distraction or desire....."

(I play golf with one hand and what is left of my right....which, isn't much.)  Let's talk about golf swings.

Defeat most assuredly is a reality and assured.  It's not the lack of effort, nor skill, nor situational awareness; or wanting to be part of some quasi team....  It's because the game assures my defeat...  I quit Randoms because that was all there was.  No matter whom was with me, the game itself saw to it, somehow. assure a loss and that was all there was....  So, I walked away.  Now, after accidentally loading three Random matches over the past two years......what did I see?  Curb stomp massive losses with me being #1 of the dead or in the top 2....  There was no conceivable way I could survive.  In one match, I was the last player in my Fabuki and all I had to do was live........then there was constant Radar.......then, the planes just wouldn't stop.....Game over Man.......with no way to defend myself. 

Oh yes Wolfie, Defeat is inevitable if I am anywhere near a PVP match....  Resistance is Futile....

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

39 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Because the Game's a celebration of 20th century Naval warfare and a virtual museum at the same time. It's incredulous to believe this is simply MMORPG like World of Warcraft or other fantasies. WG has made billions and gained world renown around the world for understanding that. You think these guys are tired of making money?

So you also think CVs with plane factories inside, invulnerable planes (FDG etc), Shotgunning Subs, Radars and hydros working thru solid islands etc etc is also "celebration of 20th century Naval warfare and a virtual museum at the same time", or is is just cruisers throwing portable radars that broke the camels back? Just wondering.

Also dont know what "celebration of 20th century Naval warfare and a virtual museum at the same time" has to do with bad/broken plane spotting mechanic.

And lets not fool ourselves, making money is the Only thing WG is concerned about, game balancing went out the window sometime in april 2019.

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

Except I'm not. Btw....wazz SSK? 

It was a designation for Hunter-killer submarines in use by the USN during the early cold war, applied to handful of specialty-built ships and some refit Gato-class ships. It fell out of use in the early 60s as larger nuclear attack submarines took over their roles.

It’s also still in use for some Canadian diesel-electric submarines.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Andrewbassg]

22 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Your not familiar with Submarines... Are you??

Well, we don't have SSBN's in the game, we only have SS. As also we don't have CVA's CVS's or CVN's. We have only Cv's.

 

Honest to god I thought that you were talking about

 

22 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Nonsense, CV's are at extraordinary risk, and unlike most classes have it in multiple spectrums: physical, tactical, and information; failure in any results in lost teammates. Just because you don't understand a class doesn't mean it's abstract.

Ummm.....I think you are confounding risk with consequence. They are NOT the same.

22 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Because WoWs is a game about contribution to a battle. Information is and has always been a major key aspect to CVs; take that away WG has to give them something to keep their contribution relevant to the team and battle.

And I repeat, Cv less games exist. If you meant as that being your opinion that's fine,  however that's  NOT an argument. 

22 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Not just CVs but DDs and Subs do too; occasionally BBs. The game is allot more dynamic than just spotting, or damage.

Yes, but.......i don't see the connection... with my point.

 

22 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

No ship in history could sustain flank speed for the entire duration of a battle: ever; unless nuclear powered. If you read the book "Blind Man's Bluff" you'd know diesel sub limitations when in contact with the adversary was/is why the USN never went back to Diesel Electric Submarines.

IRL arguments have little to none value for and about the game. And  there is no such mechanic in the game.

So.......wazz the point?

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

6 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

As also we don't have CVA's CVS's or CVN's. We have only CVs...

Technically, Saipan and Colossus are CVLs...as is Ryujo.

Bogue would be a CVE if it returned.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Andrewbassg]

17 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

It was a designation for Hunter-killer submarines in use by the USN during the early cold war, applied to handful of specialty-built ships and some refit Gato-class ships. It fell out of use in the early 60s as larger nuclear attack submarines took over their roles.

It’s also still in use for some Canadian diesel-electric submarines.

I see

Well I did thought as being the case, but Google returned that video, so I was in limbo about being some folksie reference about dd's....

I mean "slip, slip, knot"........it could work....

 

Also  didn't see nor recalled the connection with subs and even so....

SS SSAG SSBN SSG SSGN SSN

...

15 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Technically, Saipan and Colossus are CVLs...as is Ryujo.

Bogue would be a CVE if it returned.

Oh how much I wish that Colossus and Saipan to share the same harmlessness.. 

Bogue is doing tirelessly his work in Raptor Rescue.

[AdmiralThunder]

35 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Technically, Saipan and Colossus are CVLs...as is Ryujo.

Bogue would be a CVE if it returned.

United States would have been a CVA (CVA 58) if built

Independence was a CVL (CVL 22)

Zuiho was a CVL (Light Carrier)

I believe both Hermes and Hosho qualify as CVL's (Light Carrier) too but maybe not?