Game balance...

[SeaQuest]

I don't see how WG can even try to balance the game. When an overwhelming amount of the player base in random battles now has no clue what they are doing, and a good amount of those don't care, how can WG balance that? I use a matchmaker monitor, and in almost every match, both sides are full of nothing but yellow and red stat players, even in the high tier. Green, blue, and purple stat players in random battles are getting less and less almost every week. Many good players now refuse to even play randoms; it has gotten so bad unless they need to grind something or are streamers.

WG is partly at fault for letting it happen. When the game has no real consequences for being bad. I can't stand playing more than a couple of matches a day now over blowouts and teams who are just plain lost. If your team is not being overrun, the other team is, and many matches don't even go 10 minutes now. I really do not think balance is the top major issue in the game right now; it is the playerbase. I am sure a bunch of people are going to disagree with me, and that is fine, but it won't change my mind.

[3LUE]

4 minutes ago, SeaQuest said:

I don't see how WG can even try to balance the game. When an overwhelming amount of the player base in random battles now has no clue what they are doing, and a good amount of those don't care, how can WG balance that? I use a matchmaker monitor, and in almost every match, both sides are full of nothing but yellow and red stat players, even in the high tier. Green, blue, and purple stat players in random battles are getting less and less almost every week. Many good players now refuse to even play randoms; it has gotten so bad unless they need to grind something or are streamers.

WG is partly at fault for letting it happen. When the game has no real consequences for being bad. I can't stand playing more than a couple of matches a day now over blowouts and teams who are just plain lost. If your team is not being overrun, the other team is, and many matches don't even go 10 minutes now. I really do not think balance is the top major issue in the game right now; it is the playerbase. I am sure a bunch of people are going to disagree with me, and that is fine, but it won't change my mind.

You are not wrong!!!!

[pepe_trueno]

the quality of players is often tied to the games ability to teach them good gameplay and mechanics that reinforce it by punishing bad gameplay and rewarding good gameplay.

 

world of warships is full of wonky mechanics and hidden stats coupled with an absurd amount of RNG that ensures even a player that does everything wrong succeed and one that does everything right fails.

 

how many times have we seen someone sailing full broadside get away with it because drunk gunner or BS citadel overpens? guns being damaged or fires every second hit and the next match you get showered by some HE spammer and get away without fires or many modules broken?

 

look at the saturation mechanics. a part got beaten so badly its nothing but a wreck so it only takes 10% damage but somehow is still good to hold the ship in 1 pice, is not flooding or affecting the functionality of the ship 😆 

 

 

Edited January 14 by pepe_trueno

[SeaQuest]

10 minutes ago, pepe_trueno said:

the quality of players is often tied to the games ability to teach them good gameplay and mechanics that reinforce it by punishing bad gameplay and rewarding good gameplay.

 

world of warships is full of wonky mechanics and hidden stats coupled with an absurd amount of RNG that ensures even a player that does everything wrong succeed and one that does everything right fails.

 

how many times have we seen someone sailing full broadside get away with it because drunk gunner or BS citadel overpens? guns being damaged or fires every second hit and the next match you get showered by some HE spammer and get away without fires or many modules broken?

 

look at the saturation mechanics. a part got beaten so badly its nothing but a wreck so it only takes 10% damage but somehow is still good to hold the ship in 1 pice, is not flooding or affecting the functionality of the ship 😆 

 

 

That is why I put in the post that WG is partly at fault. 

[thornzero]

I am still not a good player, but I do have good matches and my fair share of losing matches. But some teams are very bad, basically 2oo's of bexp and over half the team is like that. I was starting to notice that three hero's can sort of win the game and if you can be one of these three great players or have a great game chances are you will win. But I had a few matches that there was no way we would win. None.

I focus on what I can do and don't much worry about anyone else. Some people watch everyone else and not pay attention to what they are doing; which is ridiculous. 

I got yelled at to-day [I'm in a DD] by someone who died in a BB in the first three minutes and was last place in the standings at the end. It is sort of out of your control when people like that are worried about everyone else and not themselves.

But I play randoms to gain experience and to get better so it is working for me. I don't play them all the time. There is some advantages of the other game modes that keep things interesting.

[Pugilistic]

A direct result of the Playerbase Rework^TM

[Utt_Bugglier]

4 hours ago, Pugilistic said:

A direct result of the Playerbase Rework^TM

I actually like that…purge “The Illuminati” through demoralization, enter the age of “The Ignoramati.”

[pew_pew_magoo]

Good teams or bad teams, I still do well no matter what. Can you carry every team to a win? No. But the better you play individually, the better the chances you have to get a win. Why do players always cry about balance? All balance does in my eyes is dumb down a game so bad players have more of a chance to win. 

[Asym]

49 minutes ago, pew_pew_magoo said:

All balance does in my eyes is dumb down a game so bad players have more of a chance to win. 

Wow.  I'm not sure you know what the word "balance" means...  This entire game isn't based on skill.......you do realize that, yes?  No skill gates to play upper level tiers or to buy upper level ships.......because:  the game isn't even remotely interested in developing skill........only, "developing "profit..."

Ahhhhh, I am at a loss for words.    Think of it this way........you say you're pretty good and I say I'm just an average player....  So, does that make me "dumb"?  And, some of us simply can't take this "game" seriously because of the "make believe" our host has created....

Balance is what keeps "apples with apples"......  So that, those skill grouping encourage growth and avoids the endless stomps that drove a lot of us to PVE...

Food for thought, yes !

[MnemonScarlet]

11 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

the quality of players is often tied to the games ability to teach them good gameplay and mechanics that reinforce it by punishing bad gameplay and rewarding good gameplay.

Nailed it with this. Having a good feedback loop is very important - it's how I was able to learn the game as well as I did while still being very casual during the game's earlier history. You really need a good environment for new players to learn the right lessons - especially where it concerns the basics. It's way too easy to get a wrong lesson from a bad environment and just stick with it cause you don't know better.

Edited January 15 by MnemonScarlet

[torino2dc]

16 hours ago, SeaQuest said:

I don't see how WG can even try to balance the game. When an overwhelming amount of the player base in random battles now has no clue what they are doing, and a good amount of those don't care, how can WG balance that?

In order to have a productive debate, I think it helps to be rigorous when it comes to our terms. 

'Game Balance' generally refers to the relative powers of units within the game that the players control. The numerical characteristics of these units are fully within the developer's control to tweak as they see fit. These go through a lengthy testing process and are by-and-large decently well balanced (argument for a different time).

What this post seems to be talking about is player skill as it is distributed on a match-to-match basis as well as how it aggregates over time within a player base. 

• On a match-to-match basis WG has chosen not to use player skill as a balancing metric, most likely because the Matchmaking code is very creaky and they don't see the upside to investing into changing it. We can go into Skill-Based MM at another time, but in general its advocates vastly underestimate its shortcomings.
• The player base in aggregate has a retention problem which manifests itself in a disappearing 'middle' of the skill curve -- the people who stick around are mostly red with a few purples. This part is worth talking about.

----

The Missing Middle

The missing middle phenomenon is understood as a "cursed problem" in game design: if you design a game that rewards long-term mastery, the good-but-not-great middle of the player base tends to drop away. In the grand scheme of things, the WoWS player base is no different than that of e.g. Counterstrike. However, there are several things that WoWS has done to aggravate the problem, including but not limited to:

• Nuke all the CCs. If there is one self-inflicted wound that is unforgivably stupid, it is their utter failure to cultivate a healthy community contributor program. In the early years, knowledge aggregators like iChase, Mouse, and pre-twitch Flamu were instrumental in building knowledge of the game. Teachers are key to keeping the middle somewhat healthy and stable, helping these players stay abreast of the ever-evolving state of the game. Nowadays, there are few - if any - such teaching CCs left.
• The "Asymmetrical" classes. Both the re-worked CVs and submarines received insufficient attention when it came to counter-play. For many, the fact that CV strikes can still get through heavy AA or that submarines can shotgun certain ships with impunity is a tough pill to swallow. It feels fundamentally unfair, made worse by the fact that the pilots of these asymmetrical classes are often far less skilled overall in the game than the player they are victimizing. This is a whole post in and of itself, but TLDR is: WG chose to make the counter-play weaker than it should be in order to keep the population levels of these classes from cratering. One of the costs is that middle players call BS and leave.
• Tier 11 ships were a mistake. Not only do they wreak havoc on the matchmaker, they destroyed one of the main attractions of Tier 10: that it was always top-tier. Once the colossal T9 grind was over, you had arrived at the ultimate level. The introduction of T11s cheapened the entire experience: they are hugely powerful but don't require a concomitant amount of experience or XP to unlock -- they are just plump attempt at solving the credit inflation problem. Because they only cost credits, they are often helmed by players who haven't a clue how the line works. Furthermore, they often have silly-buttons that make a mockery of inter-tier balance. Again, the middle players see their T10 collection devalued, get funny-buttoned a few times, call BS and leave.  
• New Gimmicks all the time. Full-disclosure, I am all for gimmicks. The fact that WoWS has all these different consumables and funny-buttons keeps the game a lot fresher and zanier than something like World of Tanks. It also means that the design space is quite large, as we can meaningfully differentiate sister-ships by giving them different consumable loadouts. The cost is these will initially appear unfair to players who don't pay close attention to the game's development. Unfortunately, WoWS has been pumping ships into the game at such a pace that the new gimmicks don't have time to settle into the meta. A semi-frequent player can thus get victimized by three separate gimmicks in three consecutive matches, at which point they just throw up their hands and quit.
• Under-investment in Cooperative modes. The opportunity cost of sinking so many resources into submarines (and underwater map-making) is that other game modes stagnated. All they needed was a bit of investment to make them perennial player-retainers -- games like Deep Rock Galactic prove that more challenging coop with random modifiers can be a great way to create long-term engagement. Asym has proven hugely popular but it struggles because the developer doesn't consider it a pillar of the game that requires dedicated resources. It should have been a core part of the game 5 years ago. 

----

It should be remembered that even if they had gotten all these points right, folks would still be complaining. 

The 'missing middle' problem is a statistical inevitability, so there would still be plenty of grumbling about un-skilled play. If there were no CVs or Subs then folks would complain about the next-most asymmetric ships like torpedo destroyers and smoke spammers. If we reduced the number of gimmicks entering the game, then the calls of boredom would get louder. There is no alternate timeline where everybody is happy, which is comforting in its own way.  

 

[ArIskandir]

2 hours ago, torino2dc said:

There is no alternate timeline where everybody is happy, which is comforting in its own way.  

Darn good post man. 

The conclusion is spot on. Given enough time, everyone will find reasons to become alienated from the game.

[Jakob Knight]

19 hours ago, SeaQuest said:

 

WG is partly at fault for letting it happen. When the game has no real consequences for being bad. 

 

The real consequences are that you lose most of your battles.  What other consequences should be in place if that isn't enough of an incentive to improve?

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

20 hours ago, SeaQuest said:

I don't see how WG can even try to balance the game. When an overwhelming amount of the player base in random battles now has no clue what they are doing, and a good amount of those don't care, how can WG balance that? I use a matchmaker monitor, and in almost every match, both sides are full of nothing but yellow and red stat players, even in the high tier. Green, blue, and purple stat players in random battles are getting less and less almost every week. Many good players now refuse to even play randoms; it has gotten so bad unless they need to grind something or are streamers.

WG is partly at fault for letting it happen. When the game has no real consequences for being bad. I can't stand playing more than a couple of matches a day now over blowouts and teams who are just plain lost. If your team is not being overrun, the other team is, and many matches don't even go 10 minutes now. I really do not think balance is the top major issue in the game right now; it is the playerbase. I am sure a bunch of people are going to disagree with me, and that is fine, but it won't change my mind.

  

We need more "baseball" and "cowbell", too.  🙂 

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 hours ago, torino2dc said:

In order to have a productive debate, I think it helps to be rigorous when it comes to our terms. 

'Game Balance' generally refers to the relative powers of units within the game that the players control. The numerical characteristics of these units are fully within the developer's control to tweak as they see fit. These go through a lengthy testing process and are by-and-large decently well balanced (argument for a different time).

What this post seems to be talking about is player skill as it is distributed on a match-to-match basis as well as how it aggregates over time within a player base. 

• On a match-to-match basis WG has chosen not to use player skill as a balancing metric, most likely because the Matchmaking code is very creaky and they don't see the upside to investing into changing it. We can go into Skill-Based MM at another time, but in general its advocates vastly underestimate its shortcomings.
• The player base in aggregate has a retention problem which manifests itself in a disappearing 'middle' of the skill curve -- the people who stick around are mostly red with a few purples. This part is worth talking about.

----

The Missing Middle

The missing middle phenomenon is understood as a "cursed problem" in game design: if you design a game that rewards long-term mastery, the good-but-not-great middle of the player base tends to drop away. In the grand scheme of things, the WoWS player base is no different than that of e.g. Counterstrike. However, there are several things that WoWS has done to aggravate the problem, including but not limited to:

• Nuke all the CCs. If there is one self-inflicted wound that is unforgivably stupid, it is their utter failure to cultivate a healthy community contributor program. In the early years, knowledge aggregators like iChase, Mouse, and pre-twitch Flamu were instrumental in building knowledge of the game. Teachers are key to keeping the middle somewhat healthy and stable, helping these players stay abreast of the ever-evolving state of the game. Nowadays, there are few - if any - such teaching CCs left.
• The "Asymmetrical" classes. Both the re-worked CVs and submarines received insufficient attention when it came to counter-play. For many, the fact that CV strikes can still get through heavy AA or that submarines can shotgun certain ships with impunity is a tough pill to swallow. It feels fundamentally unfair, made worse by the fact that the pilots of these asymmetrical classes are often far less skilled overall in the game than the player they are victimizing. This is a whole post in and of itself, but TLDR is: WG chose to make the counter-play weaker than it should be in order to keep the population levels of these classes from cratering. One of the costs is that middle players call BS and leave.
• Tier 11 ships were a mistake. Not only do they wreak havoc on the matchmaker, they destroyed one of the main attractions of Tier 10: that it was always top-tier. Once the colossal T9 grind was over, you had arrived at the ultimate level. The introduction of T11s cheapened the entire experience: they are hugely powerful but don't require a concomitant amount of experience or XP to unlock -- they are just plump attempt at solving the credit inflation problem. Because they only cost credits, they are often helmed by players who haven't a clue how the line works. Furthermore, they often have silly-buttons that make a mockery of inter-tier balance. Again, the middle players see their T10 collection devalued, get funny-buttoned a few times, call BS and leave.  
• New Gimmicks all the time. Full-disclosure, I am all for gimmicks. The fact that WoWS has all these different consumables and funny-buttons keeps the game a lot fresher and zanier than something like World of Tanks. It also means that the design space is quite large, as we can meaningfully differentiate sister-ships by giving them different consumable loadouts. The cost is these will initially appear unfair to players who don't pay close attention to the game's development. Unfortunately, WoWS has been pumping ships into the game at such a pace that the new gimmicks don't have time to settle into the meta. A semi-frequent player can thus get victimized by three separate gimmicks in three consecutive matches, at which point they just throw up their hands and quit.
• Under-investment in Cooperative modes. The opportunity cost of sinking so many resources into submarines (and underwater map-making) is that other game modes stagnated. All they needed was a bit of investment to make them perennial player-retainers -- games like Deep Rock Galactic prove that more challenging coop with random modifiers can be a great way to create long-term engagement. Asym has proven hugely popular but it struggles because the developer doesn't consider it a pillar of the game that requires dedicated resources. It should have been a core part of the game 5 years ago. 

----

It should be remembered that even if they had gotten all these points right, folks would still be complaining. 

The 'missing middle' problem is a statistical inevitability, so there would still be plenty of grumbling about un-skilled play. If there were no CVs or Subs then folks would complain about the next-most asymmetric ships like torpedo destroyers and smoke spammers. If we reduced the number of gimmicks entering the game, then the calls of boredom would get louder. There is no alternate timeline where everybody is happy, which is comforting in its own way.  

 

My quibble is that there is plenty of counter-play available to use against CV's and Submarines. 
It's merely that too many players aren't learning how to do it.

That aside, the "missing middle" concept was a decent morsel of "food for thought".

Still, as you pointed out in your own way, "folks would still be complaining".

[Ensign Cthulhu]

4 hours ago, torino2dc said:

Nuke all the CCs.

The CCs nuked themselves. A whole bunch of them walked out in a "gesture of solidarity" which to me was pointless and achieved nothing, while Flamu was removed for toxicity (IMO deliberately incited so that he could be sacked as a martyr rather than quit), Yuro for racist remarks and Zoup for opinions he posted outside of his remit as a CC. 

Some of the CCs who chose to stay were harassed, and one of them (tcfreer) was driven to tears on his own stream. That showed the playerbase up in a very bad light, and my sympathy for LWM supporters was seriously diminished from that point on. 

[Asym]

41 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

My quibble is that there is plenty of counter-play available to use against CV's and Submarines. 
It's merely that too many players aren't learning how to do it.

That aside, the "missing middle" concept was a decent morsel of "food for thought".

Still, as you pointed out in your own way, "folks would still be complaining".

I call ** on that.  No, there is no way to Counter the Carrier's primary weapon.  Terrain can't stop them.  AA is ineffective to the point of being moot...  We can't fight carrier to carrier to deny........spotting.  

Again, without SONAR, all we are are targets to a sub....

These are not complaints !  These are the reality dissimilar weapons create on small maps.  Now, add in that Carriers can not directly intercept enemy planes in a forward CAP and then, attack the other carrier from moment one.......  And, we don't have Active SONAR, then  let's talk about comparative combat power....  Surface ships loose there.

Till then, sorry, your theory simply sounds good and it's the "party line" but, that "dog don't hunt !"

 

[3LUE]

On 1/14/2024 at 1:48 PM, SeaQuest said:

I really do not think balance is the top major issue in the game right now; it is the playerbase.

This is spot on. Sadly, most of the player base does not care and pretty much refuses to learn how to be better. There are plenty of videos on YouTube and plenty of other resources online to learn how to be better. A large amount of the playerbase just does not care to take the time to use them. I played on EU before coming back to the states. EU has the same issues and would think so does the RU server. 

[wedge427]

10 hours ago, torino2dc said:

In order to have a productive debate, I think it helps to be rigorous when it comes to our terms. 

'Game Balance' generally refers to the relative powers of units within the game that the players control. The numerical characteristics of these units are fully within the developer's control to tweak as they see fit. These go through a lengthy testing process and are by-and-large decently well balanced (argument for a different time).

What this post seems to be talking about is player skill as it is distributed on a match-to-match basis as well as how it aggregates over time within a player base. 

• On a match-to-match basis WG has chosen not to use player skill as a balancing metric, most likely because the Matchmaking code is very creaky and they don't see the upside to investing into changing it. We can go into Skill-Based MM at another time, but in general its advocates vastly underestimate its shortcomings.
• The player base in aggregate has a retention problem which manifests itself in a disappearing 'middle' of the skill curve -- the people who stick around are mostly red with a few purples. This part is worth talking about.

----

The Missing Middle

The missing middle phenomenon is understood as a "cursed problem" in game design: if you design a game that rewards long-term mastery, the good-but-not-great middle of the player base tends to drop away. In the grand scheme of things, the WoWS player base is no different than that of e.g. Counterstrike. However, there are several things that WoWS has done to aggravate the problem, including but not limited to:

• Nuke all the CCs. If there is one self-inflicted wound that is unforgivably stupid, it is their utter failure to cultivate a healthy community contributor program. In the early years, knowledge aggregators like iChase, Mouse, and pre-twitch Flamu were instrumental in building knowledge of the game. Teachers are key to keeping the middle somewhat healthy and stable, helping these players stay abreast of the ever-evolving state of the game. Nowadays, there are few - if any - such teaching CCs left.
• The "Asymmetrical" classes. Both the re-worked CVs and submarines received insufficient attention when it came to counter-play. For many, the fact that CV strikes can still get through heavy AA or that submarines can shotgun certain ships with impunity is a tough pill to swallow. It feels fundamentally unfair, made worse by the fact that the pilots of these asymmetrical classes are often far less skilled overall in the game than the player they are victimizing. This is a whole post in and of itself, but TLDR is: WG chose to make the counter-play weaker than it should be in order to keep the population levels of these classes from cratering. One of the costs is that middle players call BS and leave.
• Tier 11 ships were a mistake. Not only do they wreak havoc on the matchmaker, they destroyed one of the main attractions of Tier 10: that it was always top-tier. Once the colossal T9 grind was over, you had arrived at the ultimate level. The introduction of T11s cheapened the entire experience: they are hugely powerful but don't require a concomitant amount of experience or XP to unlock -- they are just plump attempt at solving the credit inflation problem. Because they only cost credits, they are often helmed by players who haven't a clue how the line works. Furthermore, they often have silly-buttons that make a mockery of inter-tier balance. Again, the middle players see their T10 collection devalued, get funny-buttoned a few times, call BS and leave.  
• New Gimmicks all the time. Full-disclosure, I am all for gimmicks. The fact that WoWS has all these different consumables and funny-buttons keeps the game a lot fresher and zanier than something like World of Tanks. It also means that the design space is quite large, as we can meaningfully differentiate sister-ships by giving them different consumable loadouts. The cost is these will initially appear unfair to players who don't pay close attention to the game's development. Unfortunately, WoWS has been pumping ships into the game at such a pace that the new gimmicks don't have time to settle into the meta. A semi-frequent player can thus get victimized by three separate gimmicks in three consecutive matches, at which point they just throw up their hands and quit.
• Under-investment in Cooperative modes. The opportunity cost of sinking so many resources into submarines (and underwater map-making) is that other game modes stagnated. All they needed was a bit of investment to make them perennial player-retainers -- games like Deep Rock Galactic prove that more challenging coop with random modifiers can be a great way to create long-term engagement. Asym has proven hugely popular but it struggles because the developer doesn't consider it a pillar of the game that requires dedicated resources. It should have been a core part of the game 5 years ago. 

----

It should be remembered that even if they had gotten all these points right, folks would still be complaining. 

The 'missing middle' problem is a statistical inevitability, so there would still be plenty of grumbling about un-skilled play. If there were no CVs or Subs then folks would complain about the next-most asymmetric ships like torpedo destroyers and smoke spammers. If we reduced the number of gimmicks entering the game, then the calls of boredom would get louder. There is no alternate timeline where everybody is happy, which is comforting in its own way.  

 

Great post! 

Perhaps another thing to think about, is why WG is doing what they're doing.  I think it's fair to assume that they're in this business to make money.  SInce you can play the game for free, having a "missing middle" that isn't spending money isn't a business problem.  The content being created (CVs, Subs, Tier 11 ships, etc.) must be intended to somehow drive purchases by the user base.  If so, then WG is simply designing the stuff that some people are willing to buy, for whatever reason.  As long as the purchased content is still usable by the purchaser, they are likely to be at least content, and hopefully willing to buy more stuff.  The implications on game play only become an issue for WG when the revenue stream starts to dry up.  I suspect the upcoming CV and sub rework is the result of a drop in revenues, as folks decide that spending $100 on an in-game battleship only to get shotgunned by a sub is a bad investment...

[thornzero]

I think some people are trying to improve. Not everyone is getting into a match with the intention of doing horrible or losing.

I had one random match yester-day where 9 out of 12 players didn't breach 3oo bxp. There is no carrying in this scenario. Its a hard loss from the get go.

It also takes a while to figure this game out. My overall average is 46% but my daily averages are around 5o% so it is so slight that my overall doesn't improve by tenths of a percent. {I spent most of the time in brawls to-day so that isn't documented but it is close to 5o%, I keep track of it manually.}

But I keep practicing and trying. The good players say in the realm of 6o% are consistent, which means when you do get good, the results will be consistent. I watch a bunch of twitch also which is helping a great deal. I tend to watch the pros - there are some potato streamers or new people - they lose from time to time but they are normally carrying. They also div up. I am working solo for a reason. But the winners are consistent and their stats are sound. So to get good being the goal is achievable. 

This is why I haven't given up. It will only take a few more wins to get to 51% and a few more to get to 52% - at lease daily for me - then my overall will finally get fixed.

I cannot speak for anyone else and no one can control the teammates they are matched with. So it is a matter of personal responsibility. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, Asym said:

7 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

My quibble is that there is plenty of counter-play available to use against CV's and Submarines. 
It's merely that too many players aren't learning how to do it.

That aside, the "missing middle" concept was a decent morsel of "food for thought".

Still, as you pointed out in your own way, "folks would still be complaining".

I call ** on that.  No, there is no way to Counter the Carrier's primary weapon.  Terrain can't stop them.  AA is ineffective to the point of being moot...  We can't fight carrier to carrier to deny........spotting.  

Again, without SONAR, all we are are targets to a sub....

These are not complaints !  These are the reality dissimilar weapons create on small maps.  Now, add in that Carriers can not directly intercept enemy planes in a forward CAP and then, attack the other carrier from moment one.......  And, we don't have Active SONAR, then  let's talk about comparative combat power....  Surface ships loose there.

Till then, sorry, your theory simply sounds good and it's the "party line" but, that "dog don't hunt !"

Since the introductory Halloween event, I've played Submarines.

I've done some training room testing with @Sailor_Moon regarding "shotgunning".  (To be fair, we came to differing conclusions about it.)

I've done training room testing of Deep Water Torpedoes versus Submarines with another player.  (Results published on the old forum.)

I've viewed Yuro's youtube video.
"Comprehensive Submarine Guide (And Fighting them) in World of Warships" https://youtu.be/CvF_4wga0sg?si=K3tC2skj23JhLTDC

And I've followed the forum posts of @ArIskandir and Ahskance (on the old forums and here) and viewed several of their educational youtube videos.
https://www.youtube.com/@ariskandirr.8606
https://www.youtube.com/@ahskance6321

I've sunk every available ship type while sailing every available ship type.
And I'm not the only player to do so.

I'm saying there are ways to counter CV's and Submarines and you "call **".
I'm pointing out there are educational resources available by people who've walked the walk and done the deeds and are sharing what they've learned.

My goal is to enable people with knowledge and a 'can-do' mindset, so that they can use what they have available to them (right-bleeping-here-&-now, not in some wishful fantasy of someday-land) to learn & improve their gameplay performance.

Man, I love you (in a "broly" way).  And hope that my goal may become a lighthouse of hope that helps people navigate the pixel waters.

 

[Type_93]

19 hours ago, pew_pew_magoo said:

Good teams or bad teams, I still do well no matter what. Can you carry every team to a win? No. But the better you play individually, the better the chances you have to get a win. Why do players always cry about balance? All balance does in my eyes is dumb down a game so bad players have more of a chance to win. 

I think people in this game consider balance to be the interactions of ship types vs other ship types. Players cry about submarines and CVs not being balanced, but they are.  Subs are a one trick pony. That trick is pretty dangerous in the right hands, but they die very fast if spotted. CVs are the same. BBs are the most unbalanced type there is, but players don’t want to have that conversation.  

[Wolfswetpaws]

  
 

Edited January 15 by Wolfswetpaws

[Type_93]

11 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

 

Unfortunately, the prevailing mindset of a the vast majority of anti-Sub/CV players is to change the game to fit their  inability to learn. Heaven forbid they actually have some situational awareness of zoom out and look at the mini map once in a while. 

[MysticalWar]

20 hours ago, pew_pew_magoo said:

Good teams or bad teams, I still do well no matter what. Can you carry every team to a win? No. But the better you play individually, the better the chances you have to get a win. Why do players always cry about balance? All balance does in my eyes is dumb down a game so bad players have more of a chance to win. 

World of Warships does give players more chances to win compared to say World of Tanks. World of Tanks is tough.