Yeah.....sub changes are not really working. And defo not what actually is needed.

[Andrewbassg]

21 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The irritating thing is that planes COULD BE a finite resource...but WG is so afraid of skill, they won't let them be...

It's so incompetent.

Further elaborating on this issue, players cannot direct their AA , so it is truly and entirely at the latitude of the Cv player to decide upon the conditions of an engagement.

i can't count the times when i pressed sector, only to see the planes turning away and returning, when it was on cooldown..... Coz Cv players actually know when sector is pressed.... 

Edited March 10 by Andrewbassg

[Mono_De_Mantequilla]

It is a lot more difficult to successfully drop DCs on subs from a DD now.  They can turn so much more tightly than I.

[Aethervox]

4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

that planes COULD BE a finite resource.

 Which they were with RTS CVs (plus the HPs of the CV ofc (RTS CVs were sunk quickly, btw, they didn't get the insane protection that War Failing gives them now). I really don't see how anyone with any conscience can play reworked CVs.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

14 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

 Which they were with RTS CVs (plus the HPs of the CV ofc (RTS CVs were sunk quickly, btw, they didn't get the insane protection that War Failing gives them now). I really don't see how anyone with any conscience can play reworked CVs.

I play reworked CVs.

Because I recognize that WG doesn't care to actually balance the game. If CVs weren't brutally OP, something else would be.

You need to stop thinking that playing ships that are OP is a morally wrong choice.

The WHOLE GAME is setup to be a griefing / memeing arcade.

Embrace it for what it is...not your dream of what it could be.

[Yedwy]

Now first bit of info - I have 120 battles in subs TOTAL that includes all the "Old" subs that I played in verious test stages for couple of times...

Secondly - OFC I dont have same results in every game, as I dont have ewnough matches in them to be consistent

That said, I ll just leve this here, I just played it for this purpose...

[Colonel Potter]

20 hours ago, MBT808 said:

The sub surveillance is. . . not impactful. Sure it might catch a sub out, but honestly I've yet to see a ship with it be in position to actually use it.

 

I catch subs almost every time I am in my Venezia and they are in my game. Was even successful in the Yodo the one game I played it and there was a sub in it. I don't always sink them myself, but every time I have spotted a sub, it sank. I actually hunt down the subs with the Venezia. It's fun.

[hipcanuck]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:43 AM, Jakob Knight said:

 

 

 

While I do think the XP situation with Subs needs work, their actual combat performance seems pretty spot-on now.  They can be combat effective, but they can also go down quickly if mishandled.  If anything, one of the problems is that Subs are polar....you either get away with light damage and do well or you are crushed with no real chance to escape and do poorly.  They don't have the ability to trade damage and brawl like other units, and have alot stacked against them that a competent player will use to turn the tables on them.

One of the problems is that subs are skill based in a game run by a company trying to make everyone equal (hello communism) and remove any advantage that skill would give. Essentially, subs now are pre rework CV's. The good players get obscene amounts of xp, influence the course of battle (because everyone will either focus on a sub, forgetting all else, or just run away from that area) and the bad players die in the first 3 minutes and contribute nothing or they sail aimlessly about contributing nothing.

While I havent played much if any in the last 3 weeks, I think you'll find that competent players make up about 25% of the team and the rest are statistical fodder.

[WES_HoundDog]

On 3/9/2024 at 6:01 AM, MBT808 said:

At least with the changes so far, I'd say no, the changes haven't done anything.

The sub surveillance is. . . not impactful. Sure it might catch a sub out, but honestly I've yet to see a ship with it be in position to actually use it. It clashes with the play style of the ships that have it and thus the consumable ends up seeing little(if any) use. Now, if the consumable had been implements on DDs, I think things would be totally different and I'd have been very impactful. Gearing, Shima, and Daring should've gotten it instead of Venezia, Yodo, and Zao honestly.

 

The problem is Sub surveillance is too powerful.   Most times subs die when caught in it.    And since only a few ships have it normally your SOofL.   And have no counterplay.  So it's overpowered and yet somehow mostly useless.    That is not balance and that's why WeGe's half donkied attempt to fix subs is a heeehawww show.    

WeeGee should have implimented my step 8 as layed out in my Comprehensive guide to Improving World of Warships Part 2  which was as follows.

8.    Anti-submarine pings are added to all ships.  The pings identify the location of subs for one second for the pinging ship but only update the mini map for allied ships.  The pings regenerate at a rate of 1 for every 5 minutes. And can stack up to 2 pings. Reusable every 10 seconds. 
Battleships ping range is 6k
Cruiser ping range is 5k
Destroyer ping range is 4k

Edited March 11 by WES_HoundDog

[Sailor_Moon]

33 minutes ago, WES_HoundDog said:

WeeGee should have implimented my step 8 as layed out in my Comprehensive guide to Improving World of Warships Part 2  which was as follows.

8.    Anti-submarine pings are added to all ships.  The pings identify the location of subs for one second for the pinging ship but only update the mini map for allied ships.  The pings regenerate at a rate of 1 for every 5 minutes. And can stack up to 2 pings. Reusable every 10 seconds. 
Battleships ping range is 6k
Cruiser ping range is 5k
Destroyer ping range is 4k

 Yeah, I don't know about this as a "solution", tbh. Imagine being in a battle, having to waste precious time pinging every 10s to MAYBE locate the sub, IF it's within 6km of you at all??? Maybe if you made this a consumable on DDs with extended range, it would make more sense. At the very least, DDs could locate the sub position, for the rest of the team to try to deal with it (since DDs ironically have difficulty hunting subs). But really, just give DDs Sub surveillance. They're the ships that SHOULD have it anyways, not the cruisers.

Also, given how poor 6km range and lower is for depth charge airstrikes....I think your ranges listed are too short :S

[Sailor_Moon]

20 hours ago, Colonel Potter said:

I catch subs almost every time I am in my Venezia and they are in my game. Was even successful in the Yodo the one game I played it and there was a sub in it. I don't always sink them myself, but every time I have spotted a sub, it sank. I actually hunt down the subs with the Venezia. It's fun.

Honestly, it's about time locating and/or sinking subs was actually FUN for once. so yeah, I say give sub surveillance to the DDs. They could use them to locate the sub for the team (teamwork AND support!).

[Jakob Knight]

9 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Honestly, it's about time locating and/or sinking subs was actually FUN for once. so yeah, I say give sub surveillance to the DDs. They could use them to locate the sub for the team (teamwork AND support!).

 

I'll support this as long as air strike depth charges are removed from all ships.  The reason for this being that DDs are the one ship that can approach a Sub and get within detection range of the Sub Surveillance without the Sub being able to avoid it.  In such a situation with the current number of area attacks able to be deployed by other units, it would be too powerful...similar to having a radar cruiser with a detection range of 8km, radar with a range of 9km, and fuel-air explosive shell rounds. 

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

I'll support this as long as air strike depth charges are removed from all ships.  The reason for this being that DDs are the one ship that can approach a Sub and get within detection range of the Sub Surveillance without the Sub being able to avoid it.  In such a situation with the current number of area attacks able to be deployed by other units, it would be too powerful...similar to having a radar cruiser with a detection range of 8km, radar with a range of 9km, and fuel-air explosive shell rounds. 

An ideal solution for a game that has team play.

[Jakob Knight]

14 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

An ideal solution for a game that has team play.

The problem isn't that WOWS doesn't have team play but that it doesn't have team players.  Most players of the game only care about themselves or their own ship ("Kill stealer!", "Where are you guys going?? We said A cap!", ect).  The concept of supporting other ships is not enforced and players reject it when it is suggested.

 

It is not a game problem but a player problem.

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

10 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

The problem isn't that WOWS doesn't have team play but that it doesn't have team players.  Most players of the game only care about themselves or their own ship ("Kill stealer!", "Where are you guys going?? We said A cap!", ect).  The concept of supporting other ships is not enforced and players reject it when it is suggested.

 

It is not a game problem but a player problem.

 

I suppose this problem plagues online games overall and PvP makes it essentially worse. Nonetheless, when I was still playing Wolfenstein ET many many years ago, IIRC, the engineers still did what they were supposed to do, the fire support guy was not just arranging for airstrikes but also handing out ammo, the medics still 'healed' the wounded and so on, for the most part. I don't know if there was something strange about the mentality of the players, as opposed to WoWS players, or was it the fact that the game was played on dedicated clan servers which, even though they were public servers, might have had a pretty regular crowd. In WoWS, of course, it's random and players keep changing from map to map.

[Jakob Knight]

1 minute ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I suppose this problem plagues online games overall and PvP makes it essentially worse. Nonetheless, when I was still playing Wolfenstein ET many many years ago, IIRC, the engineers still did what they were supposed to do, the fire support guy was not just arranging for airstrikes but also handing out ammo, the medics still 'healed' the wounded and so on, for the most part. I don't know if there was something strange about the mentality of the players, as opposed to WoWS players, or was it the fact that the game was played on dedicated clan servers which, even though they were public servers, might have had a pretty regular crowd. In WoWS, of course, it's random and players keep changing from map to map.

 

I think WOWS has matured in age, but the attitude of "I'll play my game the way I want to" has had time to take root while WG has added one measure after another to remove incentives to play as a team.  Thus, while other games may remain set up to enforce team play, WOWS has continuously bent the knee to players who don't want to play as a team in a team-focused game.  The idea of 'play as a team or suffer the consequences' is not one WG has accepted, from the introduction of Radar to the installation of Air Strike Depth Charges.  The result is that players are as they are now.

 

 

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

4 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I suppose this problem plagues online games overall and PvP makes it essentially worse. Nonetheless, when I was still playing Wolfenstein ET many many years ago, IIRC, the engineers still did what they were supposed to do, the fire support guy was not just arranging for airstrikes but also handing out ammo, the medics still 'healed' the wounded and so on, for the most part. I don't know if there was something strange about the mentality of the players, as opposed to WoWS players, or was it the fact that the game was played on dedicated clan servers which, even though they were public servers, might have had a pretty regular crowd. In WoWS, of course, it's random and players keep changing from map to map.

I played a lot of Battlefield 3 (or 4?!) back in the day .... yeah, am old... and if im not mistaken there was a great deal of teamplay in that game like Medics reviving fallen teammates and throwing health packs on the ground (remember "operation Metro"?), Mechanics fixed up damaged vehicles that others was occupying and Assasult class was throwing ammo bags on the ground etc etc.

And I want to think you got a whole lot of XP doing this.

To bad things like that cant be implemented in this game, if was kinda great game Battlefield.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

25 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

The problem isn't that WOWS doesn't have team play but that it doesn't have team players.  Most players of the game only care about themselves or their own ship ("Kill stealer!", "Where are you guys going?? We said A cap!", ect).  The concept of supporting other ships is not enforced and players reject it when it is suggested.

 

It is not a game problem but a player problem.

 

...and yet...

3 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

I think WOWS has matured in age, but the attitude of "I'll play my game the way I want to" has had time to take root while WG has added one measure after another to remove incentives to play as a team.  Thus, while other games may remain set up to enforce team play, WOWS has continuously bent the knee to players who don't want to play as a team in a team-focused game.  The idea of 'play as a team or suffer the consequences' is not one WG has accepted, from the introduction of Radar to the installation of Air Strike Depth Charges.  The result is that players are as they are now.

 

 

...WG absolutely does not reward or even encourage team play.

In fact, if it is occurring to effectively, WG staff take steps to directly nerf it.

This is less a player problem and more a WG staff problem.

[Asym]

15 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

The problem isn't that WOWS doesn't have team play but that it doesn't have team players.  Most players of the game only care about themselves or their own ship....

It is not a game problem but a player problem.

The game is built on a paradox:  you advance by bring good and it's a cooperative, arena shooter (very small maps). That in and of itself is a paradox.   A failure mode looking for a place to be.

It is very much a FPS.   And, our host "encourages" the "me, me, me, my, my, my, now, now, now.... the "I want" Hook syndrome.

Small maps create a complicated and "cascading error" environment each and every match.   too much, too small, too complicated and too many gimmicks that compound the errors...  (the reason I don't play it.....it's illogical.)

But, it is a paradox in that "there is no direct value for a team, if there isn't a central and responsible Leader directing the engagement !"   No designated Leader, no real teamwork happens........ergo, we are a "cooperative" shooter where "Chaos" is the norm....

And, you want to call Randoms a team game???  A cooperative game yes, but it's not a team game in Randoms.  Now, as many games have, someone volunteers to be the "Commander" and that player assigns roles and responsibilities to the other 11 players.  That Commander gets rewarded "rewarded" for calling the match.  And, in some games that have PVP "Random" style matches, the good Commanders are worth their weight in gold.....are well know and everyone want them to call their matches (and, they are rewarded even more by Karma !!!)

Not here though.  We are a Cooperative arcade shooter in Randoms and WYSIWYG......no more and no less.  Chaos.

 

[Jakob Knight]

2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

...and yet...

...WG absolutely does not reward or even encourage team play.

In fact, if it is occurring to effectively, WG staff take steps to directly nerf it.

This is less a player problem and more a WG staff problem.

It's a player problem in that players don't accept the requirements to play as a team when they exist, feel it's wrong to force them to do so, and yell insistently for WG to change it.   It's WG's fault that they listen to them instead of telling them 'this is a team game. Be a team player or accept you will have a tough time playing.'. .  

 

 

[Asym]

8 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

It's a player problem in that players don't accept the requirements to play as a team when they exist, feel it's wrong to force them to do so, and yell insistently for WG to change it.   It's WG's fault that they listen to them instead of telling them 'this is a team game. Be a team player or accept you will have a tough time playing.'. . 

They can't tell them !  There's be no game !!!  The game itself isn't designed to be a "team game..."  If it were, "someone" would be in charge of that engagement.  There are no game mechanics that "force or compel" people to "follow orders"...  None.

It's just an Arena cooperative shooter.     Why do you think KOTS came to be>?  Players wanting "control" then have a mode of play.   BUT, even clan battles are a hot mess when it comes to "Leading" a team to victory....  Because, most civilians simply don't and haven't experienced actual military Leadership.....  Some clans actually play that way !!!  Most simply exist to have enough players to play CB's....   Ever wonder why Clan Battles aren't 12x12....????

Edited March 11 by Asym

[Admiral_Karasu]

8 minutes ago, Asym said:

The game is built on a paradox:  you advance by bring good and it's a cooperative, arena shooter (very small maps). That in and of itself is a paradox.   A failure mode looking for a place to be.

It is very much a FPS.   And, our host "encourages" the "me, me, me, my, my, my, now, now, now.... the "I want" Hook syndrome.

Small maps create a complicated and "cascading error" environment each and every match.   too much, too small, too complicated and too many gimmicks that compound the errors...  (the reason I don't play it.....it's illogical.)

But, it is a paradox in that "there is no direct value for a team, if there isn't a central and responsible Leader directing the engagement !"   No designated Leader, no real teamwork happens........ergo, we are a "cooperative" shooter where "Chaos" is the norm....

And, you want to call Randoms a team game???  A cooperative game yes, but it's not a team game in Randoms.  Now, as many games have, someone volunteers to be the "Commander" and that player assigns roles and responsibilities to the other 11 players.  That Commander gets rewarded "rewarded" for calling the match.  And, in some games that have PVP "Random" style matches, the good Commanders are worth their weight in gold.....are well know and everyone want them to call their matches (and, they are rewarded even more by Karma !!!)

Not here though.  We are a Cooperative arcade shooter in Randoms and WYSIWYG......no more and no less.  Chaos.

 

It just occurred to me that the difference between WG games and other multiplayer PvP games I've played is the near total lack of objectives for the battles. When there are no objectives, there is no overarching command that directs the teams, whether we are talking about players acting as leaders (which sometimes happens in other PvP games) or by scripted voice over commands and/or map objectives.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

19 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

It's a player problem in that players don't accept the requirements to play as a team when they exist, feel it's wrong to force them to do so, and yell insistently for WG to change it.   It's WG's fault that they listen to them instead of telling them 'this is a team game. Be a team player or accept you will have a tough time playing.'. .  

 

 

The customers are chosen by WGs marketing strategy.

Never blame the customers for something that is the business owner's fault.

[Asym]

1 minute ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

It just occurred to me that the difference between WG games and other multiplayer PvP games I've played is the near total lack of objectives for the battles. When there are no objectives, there is no overarching command that directs the teams, whether we are talking about players acting as leaders (which sometimes happens in other PvP games) or by scripted voice over commands and/or map objectives.

Oh, I whole heatedly agree !  

I can't tell you how fun it was to play, another game I won't mention, where a match Commander volunteered to "call that match".  He designed the divisions and highlighted each division's objectives and on the internal voice chat, "called the match !"   OMG, there were some very, very talented players whom made an in-game fortune "calling matches..."

Many of us were in "clans" that had a significant number of veterans...  We conducted training session twice a week and we used actual military tactics and communications techniques...  We configured our "teams" as the actual military configured "separate" combat teams....  In that game, I was a Fire Support leader;  because,  it was a lot of fun, with two other mechs that were primarily the "missile support" team.....

This game is no where near that much fun.... 

[Jakob Knight]

8 minutes ago, Asym said:

They can't tell them !  There's be no game !!!  The game itself isn't designed to be a "team game..."  If it were, "someone" would be in charge of that engagement.  There are no game mechanics that "force or compel" people to "follow orders"...  None.

It's just an Arena cooperative shooter.     Why do you think KOTS came to be>?  Players wanting "control" then have a mode of play.   BUT, even clan battles are a hot mess when it comes to "Leading" a team to victory....  Because, most civilians simply don't and haven't experienced actual military Leadership.....  Some clans actually play that way !!!  Most simply exist to have enough players to play CB's....   Ever wonder why Clan Battles aren't 12x12....????

 

The game when it went Live had strong team incentives without the need for team commanders.  Players knew what their ship's job was and why they needed the others.  You needed to keep your Destroyers alive or you'd be vulnerable to the enemy's DDs, you needed to keep your Cruisers alive or you'd be vulnerable to CV planes.  You needed to keep your CVs alive or your own side would lose spotting intelligence and air control.  You needed to keep your Battleships alive or be burned down by the enemy Cruisers.  It was a self-enforcing system that we only have shadows of now.

 

Battleship players complained about being too reliant on their DDs to spot enemy DDs, we got Radar.  CV players complained when the enemy CV concentrated on protecting their team, and we got the removal of Air Superiority loadouts and the eventual CV Rework.  Players complained that escorting Cruisers were wasting a spot on a team that could be filled by a fighting line Cruiser, and Cruisers lost their role as escorts.  And, of course, everyone complained about having to rely on their DDs and Subs to fight enemy Subs, so now every ship is equipped to engage Subs.

 

It is not impossible to make a team-enforced game where players fill a role, but the game company has to be willing to stand it's ground to do the enforcing.  And what we've seen over the years is that WOWS players don't accept being part of a team, and WG isn't willing to hold it's ground on its core concepts in the face of players who scream at them.

 

 

 

 

[Jakob Knight]

9 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The customers are chosen by WGs marketing strategy.

Never blame the customers for something that is the business owner's fault.

 

I blame the choices of the customers that lead to the consequences of the customers.  The players didn't accept being team players in a team game, so I do blame them for the lack of teamwork that is completely in their ability to do.