Proposed CV and Submarine changes discussion thread

[ArIskandir]

17 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

I would actually say the contrary. Having a good spread on your homing torps

He's talking about regular non-homing torps. If the spread is wide to begin with at shotgun range, it only gets worse from then on, making them almost useless even at mid range. So you get even more strongarmed into shotgun range because the alternative sucks.

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

10 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

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. 

Des Moines, Petro and Wooster all sit around caps, all have radars and all has 8 km plane based ASW. Only missing is Mino, so it would actually matter and WG knows this. Its not a freak coincidence that its just these 3 long spamming lines that get them.

Same as there in no coincidence that Dutch cruisers for some reason soon will be the ONLY heavy cruiser line in the game without plane based ASW. Where do they usually sit.....? Yeah, close to the action near the caps, due to their Bomb airstrikes ....

 

10 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

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.

I think its AWESOME that they would bring this utility to cruisers, but giving it to these 3 lines is just the same WG BS as when they "nerfed" the Russian long range HE spammer Khabarovs by shortening its torps to 6 km, or the BS when they "nerfed" the overperforming Russian Kremlin by nerfing its AA a little......

I will start taking WG seriously when they give the counter to the ships that actually is in position to counter.

 

 

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

32 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

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.

👍
In my opinion "good play" is not "over powered". 

[ArIskandir]

6 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

will start taking WG seriously when they give the counter to the ships that actually is in position to counter

Not to discharge WG from their mistakes, but whatever the solution they implement, some of the public will always find reasons to dislike, criticize and feel offended by the idea... Give it to Petro and it will be "Russian bias" and "Petro OP" all over again. Give it to DM and Wooster and surely some would lament they now have to take "yet another role", as if there's not enough to do in the match to also be hunting Subs... And God forbids if the consumable comes as a choice for other utility as Radar or Hydro. 

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

12 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Not to discharge WG from their mistakes, but whatever the solution they implement, some of the public will always find reasons to dislike, criticize and feel offended by the idea... 

 

This might have something to do how WG usually choose to implement stuff (steamrolling right over the player base and their suggestions and instead refer to the "silent mayority"), and also their track record with implementations, "mis-communications" and the list can go on .... for a while.

This is a perfect example, instead  of implementing a already working feature in the game (Minimap spotting" suggested by most that actually play their game, they will try and re-code every ship and mechanic in the game (probably resulting in 3000 new bugs).

So yeah, reasons are plenty but not the playerbase fault. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

 "Petro OP" all over again. Give it to DM and Wooster and surely some would lament they now have to take "yet another role", as if there's not enough to do in the match to also be hunting Subs... And God forbids if the consumable comes as a choice for other utility as Radar or Hydro. 

 

I dont think anyone would cry over Petro OP because it and 3-4 other would get a 6 km sub radar. Petro has been OP since release, which is several years now and nothing can really change that. I dont think any DM or Wooster player would complain of actually finally get a counter as well. They already usually sit at the caps so this would just bring them more utility and actual counterplay..... hence there not getting it!

 

 

 

[ArIskandir]

2 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

This is a perfect example, instead  of implementing a already working feature in the game (Minimap spotting"

Minimap spotting won't solve anything relevant. Not the things this set of changes is set to address. It would only provide a very slight relief from indirect fire. CVs would still be able to block any flanking/solo attempt, would still spot "by accident", would still grief isolated ships, etc. 

Minimap spotting is not a solution, change my mind. 

8 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

dont think anyone would cry over Petro OP because it and 3-4 other would get a 6 km sub radar

When has Flamu failed to use any excuse for some Russian bashing? 

 

[Andrewbassg]

12 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Minimap spotting won't solve anything relevant. Not the things this set of changes is set to address. It would only provide a very slight relief from indirect fire. CVs would still be able to block any flanking/solo attempt, would still spot "by accident", would still grief isolated ships, etc. 

Well....you know me. 🙂  I don't think that the proposed changes are in the right direction. Flanking ships already have enemies, namely subs. And tbh it is quite  asinine to remove seeing from Cv's. Cv's should not be able to spot, but.... not see?. Ugh.....

I stick to what I've always said:

On 12/16/2023 at 2:08 PM, Andrewbassg said:

Remove spotting by planes.

Implement the possibility for Cv's to take module dmg to their plane producing and plane handling capabilities, up to being, on rare occasions,  permanently crippled.

Restrict Cv's to see only =/+1 tier with exception of ops. That way AA can be meaningfully balanced. Not only that, but opens up the possibility to reinstate odd tier Cv;s in addition to what already exists.  In other words moar moneyz to make.

It can't be simpler than this.

This doesn't ask for the rework of the entire game, coz reasons. Cv's would fall into line with the  other classes while still remaing .....well Cv's.

 

 

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Minimap spotting won't solve anything relevant. Not the things this set of changes is set to address. It would only provide a very slight relief from indirect fire. CVs would still be able to block any flanking/solo attempt, would still spot "by accident", would still grief isolated ships, etc. 

Minimap spotting is not a solution, change my mind. 

I think it would change a whole lot since half the playerbase dont know what the minimap is. And even fewer knows/are skilled enough to use it to shoot ships. So minimap spotting would still just put a seconds marker of a ship that might even CV player would miss while flying his planes in the sky. Then IF CV guy had any awareness he would still have to drop try and engage the DD or target. But problem that most people has with current spotting is its not only the CV trying to hurt you 6-10 other reds are shooting you as well and for a DD that is devastating. And all this because a CV guy just happen to stumble upon youre ship while flying.

It might not be the perfect solution but 100 times better what we had for last 8 years and the fantasy WG is coocking up is far from tested/balanced/implemented. 

 

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

When has Flamu failed to use any excuse for some Russian bashing? 

I dont know but I thought you were refereeing to the playerbase as a whole.

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

When has Flamu failed to use any excuse for some Russian bashing?

Ah yes, the Flamu drinking game.

Take a shot, y'all!

🙂

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Not to discharge WG from their mistakes, but whatever the solution they implement, some of the public will always find reasons to dislike, criticize and feel offended by the idea... Give it to Petro and it will be "Russian bias" and "Petro OP" all over again. Give it to DM and Wooster and surely some would lament they now have to take "yet another role", as if there's not enough to do in the match to also be hunting Subs... And God forbids if the consumable comes as a choice for other utility as Radar or Hydro. 

You know, constantly assuming any criticism of the game is automatically in bad faith is a bad habit of WG staff.

Don't fall into that trap.

[Aethervox]

On 12/14/2023 at 11:32 AM, Sailor_Moon said:

I'm happy to see Wargaming attempting to fix balance issues.

ROFL. TY, Sailor_Moon, for spreading some mirth (tis the season).

[Pugilistic]

"As part of a mid-course correction in the Playerbase Rework, we are taking steps to avoid frustration for less-experienced battleship players". 

[Sailor_Moon]

2 hours ago, Aethervox said:

ROFL. TY, Sailor_Moon, for spreading some mirth (tis the season).

Hey now, at least Wargaming's trying to do something about these longstanding issues. Whether they're doing it right or not remains to be seen :P

[Wolfswetpaws]

59 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Hey now, at least Wargaming's trying to do something about these longstanding issues. Whether they're doing it right or not remains to be seen 😛

Good intentions?  Perhaps.
Though the road to h... heck, is purportedly paved with good intentions.  🙂 

I don't mind them *trying*.  I do want them to *try better*.  🙂 

[Kynami]

4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Good intentions?  Perhaps.
Though the road to h... heck, is purportedly paved with good intentions.  🙂 

I don't mind them *trying*.  I do want them to *try better*.  🙂 

Except that they keep trying to do it in a way where via misdirection everyone thinks they got the better end of the deal so they can keep all three sides buying those premiums. Never mind that attempting to please everyone has always been a losing game where nobody is happy and such a feat is nigh impossible in the first place. And pulling the wool over the eyes of the users is really hard when the internet communities by their nature can very quickly collectively parse the actual results if they feel like doing so.

Most of the competitive PvP games with this many different variations of avatar you can take out don't even try for perfect balance and instead go for seasonal shifts with the occasional sledgehammer on things that break that season's theming too hard. But with how they've gone over the years with selling gimmicks that are very reliant on established meta to prosper... Fixing the problems they themselves created and fostered for over two years to make a profit is going to always make for a number of very annoyed users.

[Sailor_Moon]

5 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I don't mind them *trying*.  I do want them to *try better*.  🙂 

Well, you won't get any argument from me for THAT.

'cause I agree with that :P

[Andrewbassg]

14 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I don't mind them *trying*.  I do want them to *try better*.  🙂 

Hmmm..... I really just saw Wolfie telling Wedgie to....... GitGud??

 

 Interesting....

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Hmmm..... I really just saw Wolfie telling Wedgie to....... GitGud??

 

 Interesting....

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Wolfswetpaws

[Sailor_Moon]

12 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Hehe, that looks familiar...

(Although you misspelled "warships", Wolf.... 😅)

Edited December 21, 2023 by Sailor_Moon

[Wolfswetpaws]

20 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Hehe, that looks familiar...

(Although you misspelled "warships", Wolf.... 😅)

Thanks @Sailor_Moon.  Good catch on the spelling.
And it's too late for me to alter it, because it is among the images I've already uploaded and cannot edit (because the window of opportunity has expired).
On the other hand, this "quirk" helps if I need to detect someone being a "copycat"?  🤔  😄 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Wolfswetpaws

[Sailor_Moon]

4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

And it's too late for me to alter it, because it is among the images I've already uploaded and cannot edit (because the window of opportunity has expired).

Hehe. Just make a new one, edit your post, delete old pic and re-post new pic, it's easy 😛

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Hehe. Just make a new one, edit your post, delete old pic and re-post new pic, it's easy 😛

Posts cannot be edited after a period of time, as things are now, though.

[ArIskandir]

35 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Posts cannot be edited after a period of time, as things are now, though.

Oh boomer,  you are right! ... My editing shennanigans don't work here!  😞

 

[Nevermore135]

On 12/19/2023 at 10:17 AM, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Same as there in no coincidence that Dutch cruisers for some reason soon will be the ONLY heavy cruiser line in the game without plane based ASW. Where do they usually sit.....? Yeah, close to the action near the caps, due to their Bomb airstrikes ....

I think this has more do do with the fact that the combination of the HE bomb airstrike and ASW airstrike (both of which can be stacked to drop multiple in quick succession) could combine for a very large amount of damage or a very wide “net” against a sub that is “detected” by pinging. I don’t think the devs want these ships to be that effective at saturating an area and counteracting the built-in uncertainty of the ping location markers.

That doesn’t mean it still doesn’t feel bad playing these ships. I think D7P is the only ship in the game that has the combination of both HE and ASW airstrikes.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

I think this has more do do with the fact that the combination of the HE bomb airstrike and ASW airstrike (both of which can be stacked to drop multiple in quick succession) could combine for a very large amount of damage or a very wide “net” against a sub that is “detected” by pinging. I don’t think the devs want these ships to be that effective at saturating an area and counteracting the built-in uncertainty of the ping location markers.

That doesn’t mean it still doesn’t feel bad playing these ships. I think D7P is the only ship in the game that has the combination of both HE and ASW airstrikes.

I don't think the HE airstrike is practically useful against subs...so claiming that they can't have ASW planes because of it is either disingenuous or direct evidence of how WG developers don't understand the game at all.