Proposed CV and Submarine changes discussion thread

[ArIskandir]

16 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Isnt this a tad bit strange...? So WG will create the illusion that they are trying to fix a problem by fitting these cruisers never even close to front lines and subs .... with submarine surveillance?

Not at all. I find it a very interesting choice to provide the consumable to those lines so they finally have a reason to move closer to the action when needed to provide support. The IJN lines could really use the gimmick to be more relevant, currently there's no particular reason to use IJN instead of any other line, they have no niche. This would give them one.  The ITA line might appear as a weird choice but they are very low on utility, the new gimmick would provide the means to play a more supportive role. 

Imo, the long range spam farm cruiser is one of the most parasitic roles in the game. Providing positive reinforcements to move away from that role is a good idea.

[Jakob Knight]

10 hours ago, Pugilistic said:

Looking at the fantasy and complexity of these changes, can we be far from a Unicorn consumable that drops glitter bombs? 

 

Wasn't that the Stun Bomb idea they tried to pitch to the playerbase?  

 

There's a quote that is my guiding rule when it comes to large, complex changes to an established system....

 

"The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." - Montgomery Scott, Star Trek III.

 

 

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Not at all. I find it a very interesting choice to provide the consumable to those lines so they finally have a reason to move closer to the action when needed to provide support. The IJN lines could really use the gimmick to be more relevant, currently there's no particular reason to use IJN instead of any other line, they have no niche. This would give them one.  The ITA line might appear as a weird choice but they are very low on utility, the new gimmick would provide the means to play a more supportive role. 

Imo, the long range spam farm cruiser is one of the most parasitic roles in the game. Providing positive reinforcements to move away from that role is a good idea.

So, you're foreseeing a lot of Zao/Yodo captains suddenly making a switch to play at suicide/dev strike range just to maybe catch out a Sub with a short time consumable ... probably with the cost of their life, do you? 

There is a good reason why Zao/Yodos often sit at back line, they explode otherwise.

No, my money is on WG deliberately choosing cruisers that are far away for these consumables. There is a very clear reason NONE of the cap contesting cruisers got them, its as clear as day. They might even give the A10 corner hugging CV the submarine surveillance, at least he can use it when Sub travel all that way to Yolo him.

[ArIskandir]

27 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

So, you're foreseeing a lot of Zao/Yodo captains suddenly making a switch to play at suicide/dev strike range just to maybe catch out a Sub with a short time consumable ... probably with the cost of their life, do you? 

There is a good reason why Zao/Yodos often sit at back line, they explode otherwise.

No, my money is on WG deliberately choosing cruisers that are far away for these consumables. There is a very clear reason NONE of the cap contesting cruisers got them, its as clear as day. They might even give the A10 corner hugging CV the submarine surveillance, at least he can use it when Sub travel all that way to Yolo him.

So what do you think would happen if you give a ship that's currently balanced (on the stronger side of the table), an extra tool that will make it much stronger on its default primary role? ... what could go wrong in that scenario?

Or, you give a ship that's currently balanced (on the weaker side of the table) an alternative play option beyond its default primary role, making it more flexible (thus more fun to play). Having options to not always sit in the A10 corner is a positive. Even more considering there's no need to make that consumable omnipresent, considering the full spectrum of changes. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by ArIskandir

[Snargfargle]

3 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

Wasn't that the Stun Bomb idea they tried to pitch to the playerbase?

That's sort of like a wizard casting "web" in a role-playing game, and about as fantastical.

Not to mention that there already is a ship-slowing mechanic, it's called flooding. I believe that flooding ships used to have their top speed reduced by 30%, although that may have changed.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Snargfargle

[Sailor_Moon]

11 hours ago, Helstrem said:

British Dreadnoughts seem pretty locked into their historical speeds, no?

Them too, I guess 😛 Actually, that reminds me...poor Iron Duke. Still saddled with that STUPIDLY long 72s turret traverse time. Why? No idea. It's not like the ship is overpowered by any stretch of the imagination... :S

[Jakob Knight]

20 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Them too, I guess 😛 Actually, that reminds me...poor Iron Duke. Still saddled with that STUPIDLY long 72s turret traverse time. Why? No idea. It's not like the ship is overpowered by any stretch of the imagination... :S

 

Overpowered is very much a concept in the eyes of the beholder, and dependent on how much the observer really wants to look at a given ship or ship type.  Those who want to see overpowered will, while those who want to think it's underpowered will never feel it's strength if it's there, as long as they don't step away from themselves.

 

And then, there are those who just shrug and say 'eh, good enuf.  Don't bother me...I'm busy' .  😁

Edited December 18, 2023 by Jakob Knight

[Asym]

On 12/15/2023 at 12:14 PM, AdmiralThunder said:

Not sure if anyone has covered this yet (too many posts to read) but I hope WG adjusts spotting damage task requirements now that they are massively limiting CV spotting. I am fine with the change just stop the 500K+ spotting damage mission tasks now that the best ships to do it in got their ability to nerfed.

@AdmiralThunder your reply has been sitting in my head for several days now....  And, the dozens of posts in this thread have an under-current of meaning, not in a specific reason or causation, but rather, a broader, systems level implication(s).

At the "systems level", the let's look at the entire game level, I have a funny feeling we, as a forum,  are missing the real point of this change(s).  Add the absolute "nervous and dissembling interview" the other day on Twitch I wonder:

• is this a compromise change for KOTS for the inclusion of Carriers into that mode of play>?

Why - really hasn't been identified where anyone can see a "real value" we gain?  So, if not us, whom? 

Look, I know I can be "cryptic" sometimes and I really don't mean to be; but, at the systems level I can see only one reason.....

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

So what do you think would happen if you give a ship that's currently balanced (on the stronger side of the table), an extra tool that will make it much stronger on its default primary role? ... what could go wrong in that scenario?

Or, you give a ship that's currently balanced (on the weaker side of the table) an alternative play option beyond its default primary role, making it more flexible (thus more fun to play). Having options to not always sit in the A10 corner is a positive. Even more considering there's no need to make that consumable omnipresent, considering the full spectrum of changes. 

If this is true, it contradicts WGs stated reasons for adding the consumable to these ships.

Now, with my experience of WG...Id say you are probably right and the marketing and CMs are wrong and being openly deceptive.

Which...yeah. Another nail in the coffin of 'respect for the playerbase.'

You can't treat the playerbase with such disdain as to lie to them constantly...and then demand the playerbase always be polite.

Ugh.

So glad WG staff don't have to advertise or market on this forum. It really brings out the worst.

[GandalfTehGray]

5 minutes ago, Asym said:

@AdmiralThunder

• is this a compromise change for KOTS for the inclusion of Carriers into that mode of play>?

Sorry AT I can't unping you from mobile. 

If they want to drive away half the participants or more. 

[ArIskandir]

8 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

If this is true, it contradicts WGs stated reasons for adding the consumable to these ships.

What's the stated reason?  (I don't do Official WG Discord/Twitch anymore)

 

Don't know why is it so hard to call things as they are... "the truth shall set you free"...

[Helstrem]

7 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

I dont understand your point. WG made the RNG dispersion for non - homing torps very wide so it literary was like a shotgun blast so very few torps would hit a non-pinged target, for the homing torps you still had pings so they would go where you pinged regardless of the ange they got launched out of the tubes. 

If the spread is so wide that the non-homing torpedoes have trouble landing multiple hits at shotgun range, simple geometry demonstrates that the non-homing torpedoes would be nigh useless at longer ranges.  That basically forces the sub player into the choice of revealing their, at least, approximate location or shotgunning.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

11 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

If the spread is so wide that the non-homing torpedoes have trouble landing multiple hits at shotgun range, simple geometry demonstrates that the non-homing torpedoes would be nigh useless at longer ranges.  That basically forces the sub player into the choice of revealing their, at least, approximate location or shotgunning.

Exactly.

This is exactly the same flaw that doomed RTS strafing.

It was conceived as a way for strike load outs to have a way to even the odds against air superiority load outs...

...but all it did was make AS builds even more dominant, because AS builds could also use strafing.

Tragic to see WG repeating similar mistakes.

[Sailor_Moon]

1 hour ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

Overpowered is very much a concept in the eyes of the beholder, and dependent on how much the observer really wants to look at a given ship or ship type.  Those who want to see overpowered will, while those who want to think it's underpowered will never feel it's strength if it's there, as long as they don't step away from themselves.

And then there's those who have extensively played said ships and KNOW said ships are either underpowered, balanced, or overpowered, based on said experience. Also usually backed-up with evidence (like low or high ship stats). 😉

But yeah anyways, Iron Duke is fine, I just don't think it deserves the 72s traverse penalty it currently has. 60s is slow enough for all ships anyways ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Asym]

1 hour ago, GandalfTehGray said:

Sorry AT I can't unping you from mobile. 

If they want to drive away half the participants or more. 

I thought about that a bit and we've said the same thing:  "if they include [ass a screw up] everyone will quit...  And, nothing happened. 

I was just taking a swag at "why?"  Something is driving our host towards change many much smarter players can't figure out....  Occam would choose the simplest conjecture:  if it's not for us, the average player....it's for them, the players we don't experience very often....

 

[coolrunings_99]

if they want to see, they could take a look…for example, leave all things as the want them to and as they implement them😉 and set up a pvp mode on pts without dildos and/or fun police…

Then spread some sheets, check out where the hell is silent majority actually at.

I mean, I d like to know😁🤟

[SolitudeFreak]

16 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

No, my money is on WG deliberately choosing cruisers that are far away for these consumables. There is a very clear reason NONE of the cap contesting cruisers got them, its as clear as day. They might even give the A10 corner hugging CV the submarine surveillance, at least he can use it when Sub travel all that way to Yolo him.

My thoughts exactly.

They're playing gymnastics to preserve some illusion of 'balance economy'. Choosing those cruisers for sub surveillance really feels like an empty gesture - it's not like their game play against other ships will change at all, but now they will be empowered to use the utility to maybe help the team at the cost of their hull?

Why not choose a ship like Gearing or something for this idea? Or would that make too much sense, having a DD be a threat to a competent sub player?

[Jakob Knight]

What I find rather odd is they mention these changes will undergo testing, but also indicate they will be rolling out these changes in 13.1.  That gives them only one update period before they intend to put these live, which seems rushed for such major and widespread changes, especially for those they claim are so early in development.  It makes me wonder if they will forgo testing and just let Live be their testing ground.

 

[Itwastuesday]

25 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

What I find rather odd is they mention these changes will undergo testing, but also indicate they will be rolling out these changes in 13.1.  That gives them only one update period before they intend to put these live, which seems rushed for such major and widespread changes, especially for those they claim are so early in development.  It makes me wonder if they will forgo testing and just let Live be their testing ground.

 

Yeah, also it's weird to make such sweeping changes out of the blue. If it was me, I'd start by testing something like removing spotting from fighter plane and iterating from there as necessary.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Jakob Knight said:

What I find rather odd is they mention these changes will undergo testing, but also indicate they will be rolling out these changes in 13.1.  That gives them only one update period before they intend to put these live, which seems rushed for such major and widespread changes, especially for those they claim are so early in development.  It makes me wonder if they will forgo testing and just let Live be their testing ground.

 

Wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately.

[Wolfswetpaws]

Air operations have a history of being reliant upon weather conditions.
If stormy conditions are severe enough, planes may be "grounded" for safety reasons.
But, clouds of mild rain won't ground planes and will reduce how far a pilot can see.

Why not introduce more conditions of weather which hamper aerial visibility while not preventing a ship from sailing through the weather?

Or is that too much "realism"?  🙂 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

17 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Air operations have a history of being reliant upon weather conditions.
If stormy conditions are severe enough, planes may be "grounded" for safety reasons.
But, clouds of mild rain won't ground planes and will reduce how far a pilot can see.

Why not introduce more conditions of weather which hamper aerial visibility while not preventing a ship from sailing through the weather?

Or is that too much "realism"?  🙂 

I proposed that years ago.

Cloud cover that blocks spotting...

WG staff were never interested.

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

21 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

So what do you think would happen if you give a ship that's currently balanced (on the stronger side of the table), an extra tool that will make it much stronger on its default primary role? ... what could go wrong in that scenario?

You mean like subs and CVs? Yeah it DID GO wrong ... for about 5 years.

And "much stronger"? Were talking Mino, Woosters etc that explode on sight but for there utility must sit close to the action. Giving them a 6 km sub radar wouldn't really break the game, most subs could still sit quite comfortable still capping in a cap when a island huggin Wooster pops that of. Were not talking 12 km range here. 

Germans has the best range and thats 9 km, dont even think that could cover an entire cap unless Wooster YOLOs in and then hes dead.

Giving them only to long range spammers is like putting a ashtray on a motorcycle as Jingles use to say.

 

21 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Or, you give a ship that's currently balanced (on the weaker side of the table) an alternative play option beyond its default primary role, making it more flexible (thus more fun to play). Having options to not always sit in the A10 corner is a positive. Even more considering there's no need to make that consumable omnipresent, considering the full spectrum of changes. 

So, giving them a suicide mission is a good alternative play? Have you tried pushing near a cap in a Zao?

 

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

19 hours ago, Helstrem said:

If the spread is so wide that the non-homing torpedoes have trouble landing multiple hits at shotgun range, simple geometry demonstrates that the non-homing torpedoes would be nigh useless at longer ranges.  That basically forces the sub player into the choice of revealing their, at least, approximate location or shotgunning.

I would actually say the contrary. Having a good spread on your homing torps usually make them more efficient than torps going in a straight conga line. I think we all seen BBs turning and dodging a perfect line of homing torps, now imagine the torps coming from 3 different directions at once?

I recently bought the T10 German U-4501 which has 3 loaders, 1 front and 2 back at different angles, and what makes that sub so strong is that you sail around in donuts and shooting of torps on cooldown and pinging BBs, but since you dont have to wait to have launcher pointing directly at BB, but more like 90 degrees of, you get 3 different sets in the water at same time coming in from 3 different directions. Any BB can just try and dodge that! Usually, they manage to dodge the first set just to eat the full second and third set in the side.

Therefore, even when I play U-2501 which only have forwards launcher I try and spread out those 6 torps all over that aiming cone and also at a sequence, which will make them so much harder to dodge.

[ArIskandir]

23 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Giving them only to long range spammers is like putting a ashtray on a motorcycle as Jingles use to say.

And what good would you get on a CL without Airstrikes? ... "Oh look, overthere guys... Guys? Yoohoo" 

There's no ideal solution because this is coming as a pasted "worse-is-nothing" add-on. They are throwing at the last moment something that should had been integral to the initial plan (ways to enforce detection as opposed to relaying on player screwup). So giving it to one or the other will present pros and cons for each case. 

For my part, I'm OK with the utility finally existing for surface ships (as I'd called out since testing 2 years ago). So, it is only for long range spammers? ... Yeah, whatever.