ArIskandir Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 5 hours ago, Yedwy said: For instance? Playing with CV/Subs or against them can be a Lot of fun. Countering CV/Subs is not as impossible as many people think. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 13 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: Playing with CV/Subs or against them can be a Lot of fun. Countering CV/Subs is not as impossible as many people think. Yep. ^^^^ 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolitudeFreak Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 17 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: 2. It's complicated. Almost all the damage Subs receive is área damage, meaning the modules take a lot of damage on most attacks. The magazine would explode with extreme frecuency. My main counter to this is DDs more or less face the same issue. The splash radius from most guns will almost invariably involve the DD's magazine, to the point where I always use Juliet Charlie unless it's co op. Maybe have an alteration to the mechanic in some way, either by chance difference or a certain radius needed. My main point with it is that it's a 'fair is fair' situation. A small unarmored ship has no citadel penalty in exchange for a much higher detonation chance. Detonation is further mitigated by size, maneuverability, and detection, which is something subs excel at as much as, and in some cases more than, DDs. I will admit this is more of a nitpick than the Hydrophone point, as I feel that's a stronger rule break. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 44 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: They did do #3, with the proliferation of "submarine surveilance" on selected cruisers. 'Selected cruisers'? As in cruisers that no one plays or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 3 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said: 'Selected cruisers'? As in cruisers that no one plays or something? https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/World_of_Warships https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Consumables https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Consumables#Gunships https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Consumables#Submarine_Surveillance Quote Submarine Surveillance The Submarine Surveillance consumable detects submarines that are at underwater and periscope depths, ignoring terrain and smoke. —— Details —— SUBMARINE SURVEILLANCE Ship Tier Nation(s) Submarine Detection Range Action Time Cooldown Charges Tech-tree cruisers and their clones V – VI 5.00 km 20 s 120 s 3 Delhi, Hobart V - VI 6.00 km 20 s 120 s 3 Tech-tree cruisers and their clones VII – VIII 6.00 km 20 s 120 s 3 Uganda, Auckland VII - VIII 7.00 km 20 s 120 s 3 Tech-tree cruisers and their clones IX – X, ★ 7.00 km 20 s 120 s 3 Encounter, Cerberus IX – X 8.00 km 20 s 120 s 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 27 minutes ago, SolitudeFreak said: My main counter to this is DDs more or less face the same issue. The splash radius from most guns will almost invariably involve the DD's magazine, to the point where I always use Juliet Charlie unless it's co op. Maybe have an alteration to the mechanic in some way, either by chance difference or a certain radius needed. My main point with it is that it's a 'fair is fair' situation. A small unarmored ship has no citadel penalty in exchange for a much higher detonation chance. Detonation is further mitigated by size, maneuverability, and detection, which is something subs excel at as much as, and in some cases more than, DDs. I will admit this is more of a nitpick than the Hydrophone point, as I feel that's a stronger rule break. Any experienced DD Captain knows to always use the Juliet Charly signals or falling that at least the "magazine" Modules. It's not really a 'fair trade' for not having a Citadel but more of a tax for playing DDs. On Subs, most of the damage comes from DCs, that have a much wider área of effect than HE blasts. Submarines would be unplayable without the Juliet Charly. A magazine wouldn't be balance but a straight out tax. Imo it wouldn't make sense to have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolitudeFreak Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: Submarines would be unplayable without the Juliet Charly. If this is the case (I feel DDs are unplayable without JC, but I also am meh at best), simply alter the mechanic enough to make it playable. The chance should be there, same as it is for the DDs. Edited May 19 by SolitudeFreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 3 minutes ago, SolitudeFreak said: If this is the case (I feel DDs are unplayable without JC, but I also am meh at best), simply alter the mechanic enough to make it playable. the chance should be there, same as it is for the DDs. Silly me. I never use the Juliet Charlie anti-detonation flag with Destroyers. Yet, somehow, I'm doing okay. Detonations are rare, for me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yedwy Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 56 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: Playing with CV/Subs or against them can be a Lot of fun. Countering CV/Subs is not as impossible as many people think. Impossible? No... Fun? Also no... Also if by fun you mean farming other players with as little option for them to endanger you then yes I guess they can be fun to play... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 35 minutes ago, Yedwy said: Impossible? No... Fun? Also no... Also if by fun you mean farming other players with as little option for them to endanger you then yes I guess they can be fun to play... Welcome to WoWs. I've tilted long and hard at that windmill in WG staffs heads...CV mains have long maintained that damage farming is boring and they want to use planes for more than just strikes. WG has consistently told us we were wrong and consistently tried to make CV play merely damage farming. We have told them and told them and told them how bad that is for the game. The fact that it remains their preferred game design should be owned BY WG STAFF. CV players do not want the current system and design. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 53 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/World_of_Warships https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Consumables https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Consumables#Gunships https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Consumables#Submarine_Surveillance I suppose I shouldn't complain (much) because at least the Japanese cruisers are included. Unless WG's idea is to bring the cruisers closer to the action in which case.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 6 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said: I suppose I shouldn't complain (much) because at least the Japanese cruisers are included. Unless WG's idea is to bring the cruisers closer to the action in which case.... I have no idea. I was merely trying to answer your question. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 27 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: I have no idea. I was merely trying to answer your question. I now have some idea, and it's not a good idea. I accidentally went out on Furutaka which has a 5 km range on that consumable. I guess it doesn't come as much of a surprise that the sub never got within 5 klicks, or that it had no intention of letting me come within that range either. And I didn't. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said: I now have some idea, and it's not a good idea. I accidentally went out on Furutaka which has a 5 km range on that consumable. I guess it doesn't come as much of a surprise that the sub never got within 5 klicks, or that it had no intention of letting me come within that range either. And I didn't. Kill Bill - Silly Rabbit Edited May 19 by Wolfswetpaws 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 5 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: If only WG staff would properly moderate their game...instead of gleefully encouraging the toxicity. What have you done to communicate your irritation with the current state of affairs to WG staff? Doing so with the community will achieve absolutely nothing... Ah, the WG staff decided they really don't need to talk to us at all..... Ah, we are in the New NON WG forum because....... Discovery is a bad thingy......... 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Some people simply have the "subs"/"cv's" "are bad" mentality and would prefer to eliminate ship types which were historically present (thus denying their representation in-game). Yes, because Wedgie wont listen and when (pretends) to listen, they refuse do what is needed. Instead they do some crap. And voila how we get to hate classes. 6 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Meanwhile, at WG HQ...senior leaders are laughing at the player community while it attacks each other for the terrible game and economy balancing decisions made by WG senior leadership... The game is intentionally balanced this poorly and then we are encouraged to blame each other. Send the toxicity where it belongs...to WG HQ. This. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 3 hours ago, ArIskandir said: Playing with CV/Subs or against them can be a Lot of fun. Countering CV/Subs is not as impossible as many people think. and 2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Yep. ^^^^ You two are really funny. I appreciate that you two have so much skill to endure endless stomps.... The rest of us really, really know better..... Why won't players like all of us that play ASB/Ops as a team refuse to play Randoms? We started playing this game doing just that....... And, saw the writing on the wall... Sorry, with dissimilar weapon system and gimmicks all over the place, it is a miracle we are still here....... Although, we have been discussing "plan B" a lot lately. I am happy you two have so much skill to have fun; in, a losing proposition for the rest of us. At some point, there simply won't be enough playing Randoms and our host may have to react.... Till then, if ever, you are both more than welcome to join us some evening in ops/asb's having a lot of non-toxic fun together! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 (edited) 4 hours ago, SolitudeFreak said: If this is the case (I feel DDs are unplayable without JC, but I also am meh at best), simply alter the mechanic enough to make it playable. The chance should be there, same as it is for the DDs. I would be happy with a chance for "implosion" everytime a submerged Sub takes damage en the HP falls beliw a certain threshold Edited May 19 by ArIskandir 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 4 hours ago, Yedwy said: Impossible? No... Fun? Also no... Since fun is subjective, can't be generalized. I certainly have fun from those interactions. 4 hours ago, Yedwy said: Also if by fun you mean farming other players with as little option for them to endanger you then yes I guess they can be fun to play... That's a perspective I guess but not what I enjoy. From Subs I enjoy the stalking, walking the thin line where a mistake would get You detected and sunk, it's like playing Thief or some other sneak based game against human opponents. From CVs it is the strategic Freedom You get to impact and shape the match, and the ability to provide quick reaction support to your team mates. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MnemonScarlet Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Welcome to WoWs. I've tilted long and hard at that windmill in WG staffs heads...CV mains have long maintained that damage farming is boring and they want to use planes for more than just strikes. WG has consistently told us we were wrong and consistently tried to make CV play merely damage farming. We have told them and told them and told them how bad that is for the game. The fact that it remains their preferred game design should be owned BY WG STAFF. CV players do not want the current system and design. I don't think they have confidence in their playerbase being able to handle a more sophisticated and influential role, but they won't come out and say it. Most of the playerbase probably can't, that's why they got rid of RTS CV (the more interesting and sophisticated way to CV). They're that afraid of skill gap. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 6 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said: I don't think they have confidence in their playerbase being able to handle a more sophisticated and influential role, but they won't come out and say it. Most of the playerbase probably can't, that's why they got rid of RTS CV (the more interesting and sophisticated way to CV). They're that afraid of skill gap. The skill gap is still there, which is the hilarious thing. The reason RTS had such a massive skill gap was their nigh on unusable, buggy UI. There were several out and out exploits that you could do with strafing if your hands and PC were capable of doing so...and WG refused to acknowledge that they were issues and instead blamed the players for the 'skill gap.' WG Staff are wrong on how CVs are played, wrong on what changes will do to CV play, patch after patch after patch...and those of us who have been proven right time after time after time are ignored, insulted, and trolled by WG staff and WG volunteers. Here you are blindly stating the already many times debunked WG staff 'reasons' for not listening to the players who actually play and understand CVs...in favor of their own ideas which have been proven over and over and over to be failures. The REALITY is that WG staff can't handle the idea of any ship in game doing anything more sophisticated than damage farming, and no one at that company is willing to admit it and ask for help. Most of the playerbase (as low skill as they are) are an order of magnitude better at playing and understanding CVs than anyone at WG with decision-making authority. FYI, WG got rid of RTS CVs because they couldn't figure out how to fix the UI bugs and needed to stop CV play from becoming entirely about spotting and air superiority. That's right...rework 0.8.0 was all about trying to deal with vision control...and here we are nearly five years later and vision control is still an issue and WG has come out with their second or third ideation session around changing CVs to 'fix' vision control issues...and all of their 'fixes' are about turning CVs into boring damage farming systems. I said it during the 0.8.0 launch and subsequent 'balancing' sessions...and I'll keep saying it. Whoever at WG is making decisions around how CVs are in the game and balanced, should not be listened to about CVs...anymore. Ever. If it's the CEO of WG, they should still be cut off from trying to 'fix' this class. Enough failure has happened to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that those people DO NOT KNOW HOW TO FIX IT. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 2 hours ago, Asym said: 6 hours ago, ArIskandir said: Playing with CV/Subs or against them can be a Lot of fun. Countering CV/Subs is not as impossible as many people think. and 5 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Yep. ^^^^ You two are really funny. I appreciate that you two have so much skill to endure endless stomps.... Not everyone needs 10,000 hours to become competent at this game. But it doesen't hurt. 🙂 Win or lose, I usually did stuff to make progress with my goals of the day. And I don't lose sleep over my statistics. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 7 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: The skill gap is still there, which is the hilarious thing. The reason RTS had such a massive skill gap was their nigh on unusable, buggy UI. There were several out and out exploits that you could do with strafing if your hands and PC were capable of doing so...and WG refused to acknowledge that they were issues and instead blamed the players for the 'skill gap.' WG Staff are wrong on how CVs are played, wrong on what changes will do to CV play, patch after patch after patch...and those of us who have been proven right time after time after time are ignored, insulted, and trolled by WG staff and WG volunteers. Here you are blindly stating the already many times debunked WG staff 'reasons' for not listening to the players who actually play and understand CVs...in favor of their own ideas which have been proven over and over and over to be failures. The REALITY is that WG staff can't handle the idea of any ship in game doing anything more sophisticated than damage farming, and no one at that company is willing to admit it and ask for help. Most of the playerbase (as low skill as they are) are an order of magnitude better at playing and understanding CVs than anyone at WG with decision-making authority. FYI, WG got rid of RTS CVs because they couldn't figure out how to fix the UI bugs and needed to stop CV play from becoming entirely about spotting and air superiority. That's right...rework 0.8.0 was all about trying to deal with vision control...and here we are nearly five years later and vision control is still an issue and WG has come out with their second or third ideation session around changing CVs to 'fix' vision control issues...and all of their 'fixes' are about turning CVs into boring damage farming systems. I said it during the 0.8.0 launch and subsequent 'balancing' sessions...and I'll keep saying it. Whoever at WG is making decisions around how CVs are in the game and balanced, should not be listened to about CVs...anymore. Ever. If it's the CEO of WG, they should still be cut off from trying to 'fix' this class. Enough failure has happened to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that those people DO NOT KNOW HOW TO FIX IT. Do you have documents to support what you've wrote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethervox Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 6 hours ago, ArIskandir said: Isn't it really? ... Those lines are drawn very closely to support on Sub/CV. * Yes, those who support reworked CVs & Subs as opposed to those who want both of these removed. Wasn't that the motto for adding Superships? * Not at all, at least, I wasn't referring to them, but, as you mention Superships, I would include those with reworked CVs & Subs (all horrible inclusions, as designed, imo - just to be clear where I stand. There's very evident 'ability' linked to playing both types (CV/Subs). The difference in results between high skill and low skill is quite dramatic. * I cannot comment on Subs, as originally designed, as reworked or as presently offered as I haven't played them enough. However, it matters not how reworked CVs are played - they are abominations. I played RTS CVs & would play them again, in an instant, if offered again. As to unlimited airplanes with reworked CVs these are a complete IDIOCY. not to mention how WG reworked CVs ruined the AA parameters of all the other classes of ship. Monkeys could play reworked CVs & do well enough. Reworked CVs are an ABOMINATION & anyone with any brains knows that. I refuse to play reworked CVs (same for Subs & Supersh*ts). Do you, Arlskandir? How about you man up & say where you stand (on all three)? I've done so. 😁 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 52 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Do you have documents to support what you've wrote? Which claims? Because WG lied about just about everything to do with 0.8.0. I would not accept any WG documents from that time period as being in any way the truth. Counter strafing was a known bug covered by some of the CV focused CCs back in the day. We could try looking through Farazelleth's archives. He and others would also cover just how janky and buggy the RTS interface was...In my experience, most people didn't play CV because learning that clusterF of a UI was painful...hence, the 'skill gap'. WG skillfully redirecting the playerbase from the reality that the root cause was their inability to code a decent UI. My statements with regards to what I perceive as the vision WG has for CVs is my looking at their ACTIONS, not their words, and in nearly every case...the objective is to try to force CVs to be primarily about damage farming, not vision control. Even the new support CV line has insufficient vision control capabilities to make that the primary use of the CV. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now