Unlooky Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 4 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said: It would be much more fun to engage the sub using DD's or light cruisers using detection and actually hunt down the sub. I'm suggesting to you, though, that the arcade style game play isn't the principal reason why WG hasn't really implemented ASW this way. The reasons, as I see them, are two-fold. 1) A DD hunting a sub would be spotted and become a target for the opposing team defeating it's purpose as a sub hunter, and 2) the DD player might choose not to do it but instead look for easier target to farm damage off. WG has implemented the ASW plane countermeasure largely as a self-defense mechanism because the players can't count on anybody else doing the dirty work for them. There's no proper team play element in WoWS despite it nominally having two teams in every PvP battle. It's often been said that WoWS is a FPS where you take on 23 other players in any given match. Yes. The reality is that ASW cannot fit into the flow of battles, as ASW obviously cannot take place while under a Jutland-esque surface action. This is why, in my view, Wargaming has opted to give everyone some basic self defense capabilities, and a select few ships the ability to actually spot submarines. I 100% agree with both these paragraphs, although I don't know about how "fun" it would be to sail looking for submarines for minutes on end. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 ... a Long time ago, in a faraway pixel sea... there was no airstrike and BBs had to camp over the Sub to exhaust their air, and force them to surface. History knew them as "whalers" 🤣 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 10 minutes ago, Unlooky said: Yes. The reality is that ASW cannot fit into the flow of battles, as ASW obviously cannot take place while under a Jutland-esque surface action. This is why, in my view, Wargaming has opted to give everyone some basic self defense capabilities, and a select few ships the ability to actually spot submarines. I 100% agree with both these paragraphs, although I don't know about how "fun" it would be to sail looking for submarines for minutes on end. It's the thrill of the chase. Something that really is missing from this game. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 4 hours ago, Musket22 said: How about how you try to avoid the fact of AIRCRAFT being shorter ranged than SECONDARIES? "Work together..." operative word is SHIPS - not the aggrevating abominations. I sincerely believe the Massachusetts has all the tools she needs in her toolbox to play this game effectively. Have you considered that you have more of a difficult time because of your mental bias' and attitudes? 🙂 It's not the ship that's the problem, as far as I can discern. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clammboy Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 I love subs but only from Jersey Mikes. 1 1 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 1 hour ago, Arcus_Aesopi said: Subs are poorly implemented and thus cause problems for every other class. They could be good... but aren't. Ships that don't have a true flat deck should not be launching flights of fixed wing aircraft even for asw... It doesn't work even fictionally and was dropped from all fleets in real life. Like subs, the new hybrid ships just cause jarring disruptions to the game and remove any possible suspension of disbelief for this non-sim sim. Helicopters work (but not as flights)... fixed wing didn't in the time-span of the game. Halford... I love when it launches one plane and is quickly joined by the materializing flight around it... Since none of these planes are actually recoverable in WG combat... they should all kamikaze instead of using munitions... ridiculous. In fact, the tooltip for the Halford planes say there are 8 on deck... WG is trapped in years of bad mechanics which keep them from implementing things that would make it all work... spotting being the most egregious example (not just plane spotting). Ships without aircraft (fighter or spotter planes) are being equipped with Depthcharge-airstrikes. My understanding is that they are loitering over the combat area, until called-for by the ship in question. Is it a stretch of the imagination? Perhaps. But who is going to give-up their magical 3D-printing Repair Party? There are plenty of "arcade game" phenomena in World of Warships. 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcus_Aesopi Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 7 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Ships without aircraft (fighter or spotter planes) are being equipped with Depthcharge-airstrikes. My understanding is that they are loitering over the combat area, until called-for by the ship in question. Is it a stretch of the imagination? Perhaps. But who is going to give-up their magical 3D-printing Repair Party? There are plenty of "arcade game" phenomena in World of Warships. 🙂 It is the stretch beyond breaking which causes the problems in immersive gaming or storytelling. That is the literary concept of “willing suspension of disbelief” that is not to be overly stretched so the participants are happy to continue in the charade. There is the “farce” as well in which the limits are deliberately broached… different kind of entertainment but still valid. 🙂 So, is the game design headed toward an immersive experience or just a farce? …or can WG not figure that out? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchoolGaming_Youtube Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 6 hours ago, Musket22 said: I've posted often as to how silly I find it that this BB (and a few other BBs) have their ASW Air strike castrated to a range of 5km. It just hit me that my Massachusets has secondary range reaching out to 10.8km with the AIR STRIKE range limited to 5km. Oh yes, it's so great in surface and anti-air lets hobble it against the abominations! Its classic Wargaming am afraid! They are clueless and they flooded the game with such in-balance and powercreep that they have no idea how to fix it now ..... so some "overpowered" BBs gets "Balanced" by shitty laughable ASW so they could get countered by new "special" class, submarines. Zero logic, makes no sense for anyone except WG and their holy spreadsheets... It really like the devs just roll a dice and detemend what things to "nerf" to keep a already overpowered ship or class "in line". Its like when they rolled the dice and "nerfed" OP OG Kremlin by nerfing its AA .... like the AA was whats wrong with her ... or before that nerfing OG Khabas torps, when its was a 1000% GUNboat. And now the same folks are trying to "Fix" carriers and plane spotting.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 23 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said: Zero logic, makes no sense for anyone except WG and their holy spreadsheets. There's a certain method to the apparent madness. You can't 'balance' a ship by nerfing a certain parameter that's central to the ship identity/playstyle without compromising the core identity of that ship, case in hand, for example: you can't balance Massa by nerfing Secondaries without breaking Massa's playstyle. When you have a ship that's already 'settled' in a certain way/playstyle, you can't nerf the ship in a way that compromises or ruin's her playstyle. This type of "Achille's heel" balance by providing a critical weakness to some specific threat is important to keep a healthy diversity of playstyles, else you'll end with all ships being variations on the same theme (like low tier BBs), all bland variations over the same theme with little individual 'character'. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugilistic Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 7 hours ago, Musket22 said: I've posted often as to how silly I find it that this BB (and a few other BBs) have their ASW Air strike castrated to a range of 5km. It just hit me that my Massachusets has secondary range reaching out to 10.8km with the AIR STRIKE range limited to 5km. Oh yes, it's so great in surface and anti-air lets hobble it against the abominations! Well, the original concept was no ASW on BBs, but that was too IRL-ish, but thats an aside. What nerf to Mass would you accept for 7km ASW? 8km? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clammboy Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 (edited) The real problem with Massachusetts is she's in tier 8 which means she's really in tier 10 a lot. She's a great ship and can handle being up tiered but the 5 km is really rough against tier 10 subs who know what there doing. It can be very annoying. Edited July 26 by clammboy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore135 Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 (edited) 39 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: There's a certain method to the apparent madness. You can't 'balance' a ship by nerfing a certain parameter that's central to the ship identity/playstyle without compromising the core identity of that ship, case in hand, for example: you can't balance Massa by nerfing Secondaries without breaking Massa's playstyle. When you have a ship that's already 'settled' in a certain way/playstyle, you can't nerf the ship in a way that compromises or ruin's her playstyle. This type of "Achille's heel" balance by providing a critical weakness to some specific threat is important to keep a healthy diversity of playstyles, else you'll end with all ships being variations on the same theme (like low tier BBs), all bland variations over the same theme with little individual 'character'. I wouldn’t say this is the dev’s thinking at all. The answer to why some notable battleships - GC, Massachusetts, and Mushashi - have been “balanced” with short range ASW is not because they didn’t want to nerf anything that contributed to the ship’s “core identity.” MA isn’t nearly the secondary monster she used to be because of a series of indirect nerfs: the IFHE/plating rework and the commander skill rework’s changes to the manual secondaries skill. These ships are saddled with such short range ASW because the devs felt the need to rein them in but didn’t want to directly nerf the ships because they said they wouldn’t after the GC fiasco. They have no desire to reopen that can of worms. Someone at WG has looked at the spreadsheet and decided the numbers say these ships are “balanced.” Of course, this type of “balance” still produces an assymetric game experience that feels very bad when one is left so ineffective against a competent submarine player. WG did the same thing with Ohio and Thunderer when subs were introduced, but those ships have had their ASW range buffed relatively recently. Edited July 26 by Nevermore135 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musket22 Posted July 27 Author Share Posted July 27 2 hours ago, Arcus_Aesopi said: So, is the game design headed toward an immersive experience or just a farce? …or can WG not figure that out? IMO In just DD / CA / BB combat (very early WoWs) it was very immersive. The tried to stay immersive with the introduction of CVs - integration with the rest of the surface ships is still less than optimum. They turned farcical when they move the Halloween oddities into full fledged game abominations. Fun & Engaging was their mantra - they lost that melody. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richie_macrophage Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 5 hours ago, Type_93 said: Massa is already very OP for its tier. Small ASW range helps keep her balanced. You guys cry about balance unless it’s one of the ships you play most. Lenin, Alaska, Enterprise, Georgia, Nelson, etc all have standard ASW airstrike range despite also being considered "overpowered". Thunderer was buffed to standard ranges as well. In fact, two ships (Belfast and Kutuzov) get regular ASW airstrike range, while their tech tree counterparts are stuck to ship-mounted depth charge launchers. People should stop repeating the same argument of "X ship is OP so it needs bad ASW" because there's no precedent for it ingame. It is not a balance decision, it is just stubbornness from WG. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdmiralThunder Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 10 hours ago, Type_93 said: Massa is already very OP for its tier. Small ASW range helps keep her balanced. Ridiculous. MA being strong vs surface ships has nothing to do with how it interacts with Subs. If MA is too strong vs surface ships you balance it around that. Surface ship interaction with Subs is a different thing based around different mechanics. Gimping MA vs Subs in no way balances how strong it is vs surface ships. This is a flawed argument by you (and WG). This is like when Kremlin was too strong so WG nerfed AA. Just foolish. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchoolGaming_Youtube Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 16 hours ago, ArIskandir said: There's a certain method to the apparent madness. You can't 'balance' a ship by nerfing a certain parameter that's central to the ship identity/playstyle without compromising the core identity of that ship, case in hand, for example: you can't balance Massa by nerfing Secondaries without breaking Massa's playstyle. When you have a ship that's already 'settled' in a certain way/playstyle, you can't nerf the ship in a way that compromises or ruin's her playstyle. This type of "Achille's heel" balance by providing a critical weakness to some specific threat is important to keep a healthy diversity of playstyles, else you'll end with all ships being variations on the same theme (like low tier BBs), all bland variations over the same theme with little individual 'character'. But its still mostly just madness since they use a mechanic to "nerf" these overperforming BBs that is not even present in all games! I know we all like to complain about 2-4 Subs in each game but in many games there are actually none, and in all those games these overperforming BBs isn't "nerfed" at all?! Even in games with 1 sub the nerfed ASW BB can just choose to go to other flank. So, it just some backhanded, over complicated, convoluted way of trying fix a problem they created (like current cv spotting balancing changes). But this is just the way WG works I guess. I would much rather see them tune something that actually affects the BBs in EVERY game it plays without breaking as you say its playstyle/flavor. Maybe concealment? Maybe gun reload? Maybe DCP cooldown? Something that actually makes some sense! Same story with one of my recent favorite ships, Leg mod Golden. Dont know if this is actually a nerf they thought off or just a little Whoopsie from WG that they forgot to give Plane ASW to Golden after they gave it to Hinden and hybrid BBs. But in the cases where I play Golden I will just go to the flank with no Subs regardless of where I spawn, a way to circumvent WGs BS "balancing". But I guess WG thinks "Well everyone is complaining about Subs and how OP/Broken they are so now that's out main tool for balancing ships and classes comrades. If its Broken/OP, just give it shitty ASWs"! Edited July 27 by OldSchoolGaming_Youtube 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 I hope by this point everyone knows that WG 'balancing' the ships has zero relevance for actual game play balance. It's just another gimmick on top of all the gimmicks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWind84 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 19 hours ago, Musket22 said: I've posted often as to how silly I find it that this BB (and a few other BBs) have their ASW Air strike castrated to a range of 5km. It just hit me that my Massachusets has secondary range reaching out to 10.8km with the AIR STRIKE range limited to 5km. Oh yes, it's so great in surface and anti-air lets hobble it against the abominations! Honestly - better that I don't start writing... I will just say: Massa was my favourite ship... 😔 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 48 minutes ago, WildWind84 said: Honestly - better that I don't start writing... I will just say: Massa was my favourite ship... 😔 I still play Massa in operations, and for certain missions in coop. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 14 hours ago, Arcus_Aesopi said: It is the stretch beyond breaking which causes the problems in immersive gaming or storytelling. That is the literary concept of “willing suspension of disbelief” that is not to be overly stretched so the participants are happy to continue in the charade. There is the “farce” as well in which the limits are deliberately broached… different kind of entertainment but still valid. 🙂 So, is the game design headed toward an immersive experience or just a farce? …or can WG not figure that out? Having a torpedo's warhead potency become altered according to the distance the torpedo travels is "beyond breaking", for me. This phenomena was implemented into submarines and the mirror of it was implemented with the new line-split of the French Destroyers. It nerfs both ship-types's capabilities, significantly. But we won't hear BBabies cry & whine about that, eh? 🙂 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 14 hours ago, Nevermore135 said: I wouldn’t say this is the dev’s thinking at all. The answer to why some notable battleships - GC, Massachusetts, and Mushashi - have been “balanced” with short range ASW is not because they didn’t want to nerf anything that contributed to the ship’s “core identity.” MA isn’t nearly the secondary monster she used to be because of a series of indirect nerfs: the IFHE/plating rework and the commander skill rework’s changes to the manual secondaries skill. These ships are saddled with such short range ASW because the devs felt the need to rein them in but didn’t want to directly nerf the ships because they said they wouldn’t after the GC fiasco. They have no desire to reopen that can of worms. Someone at WG has looked at the spreadsheet and decided the numbers say these ships are “balanced.” Of course, this type of “balance” still produces an assymetric game experience that feels very bad when one is left so ineffective against a competent submarine player. WG did the same thing with Ohio and Thunderer when subs were introduced, but those ships have had their ASW range buffed relatively recently. One might point-out that, indeed, ships were "balanced", until WG/WOWs made yet another change to the game. As @ArIskandir mentioned, BB's didn't have ASW during the early and middle phases of testing submarines. Depthcharge-airstrikes were introduced, later, and provided to more ships than those which already had fighter/spotter planes. (My interpretation is that the planes loiter over the battle area until they're called-down by the ship. Which is not too different from the Dutch Cruiser air-strikes.) In the past I've joked, and been serious, about how the Depthcharge-airstrike is an "Easy Button" given to players who complained about their favorite ship(s) not having an ASW capability (despite said ship never having ASW in real-life and in real-life would work with or rely upon other ships in their navy to perform ASW). (Edited to add: Or behave more like HMS Dreadnaught. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/battleship-sinks-submarine-how-hms-dreadnought-rammed-and-sunk-u-boat-during-world-war-i ) During Submarine testing and feedback, on the NA forum, I even suggested having ASW planes being provided as a choice available to ships which did have fighter/spotter planes. So, a player could either choose (while in Port, via the equipment screen) to mount one of the plane types (fighter or spotter or ASW plane) or allow the ships to choose which plane type they launch next during a battle (with the appropriate amount of time required to switch/re-arm the plane and an appropriate amount of cool-down time after use). WG/WOWs took the concept and morphed it into something much more widespread and powerful. And it is easy to use. Just click/aim/drop. There's no flying involved, when compared with hybrid ships which require their players to fly the planes. Edited July 27 by Wolfswetpaws 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 12 hours ago, Musket22 said: IMO In just DD / CA / BB combat (very early WoWs) it was very immersive. It is your opinion and you're entitled to it. 🙂 Personally, I feel that DD/Cruiser/BB games are limited and "two dimensional" and can become very boring. 😴 One might as well play an "Age of Sail" game without the ability to perform boarding-actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 7 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: It is your opinion and you're entitled to it. 🙂 Personally, I feel that DD/Cruiser/BB games are limited and "two dimensional" and can become very boring. 😴 One might as well play an "Age of Sail" game without the ability to perform boarding-actions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPQfwmfRq2s 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcus_Aesopi Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 34 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Having a torpedo's warhead potency become altered according to the distance the torpedo travels is "beyond breaking", for me. This phenomena was implemented into submarines and the mirror of it was implemented with the new line-split of the French Destroyers. It nerfs both ship-types's capabilities, significantly. But we won't hear BBabies cry & whine about that, eh? 🙂 If DD's were actually the in-game counter to subs, perhaps the crazy "balance" gimmicks wouldn't be necessary? It's that basic kind of immersion breaking gimmick that causes the traps that WG says for itself. Also, let's try to NOT cast the cheap aspersions toward others... similar to Hog's announcement, there is no need to add a "gotcha" line aimed at other players or classes of players. It lessens the impact of otherwise good comments. Some folks like that stuff, but I think it's what lowers participation in forums. YMMV 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 5 minutes ago, Arcus_Aesopi said: If DD's were actually the in-game counter to subs, perhaps the crazy "balance" gimmicks wouldn't be necessary? It's that basic kind of immersion breaking gimmick that causes the traps that WG says for itself. Also, let's try to NOT cast the cheap aspersions toward others... similar to Hog's announcement, there is no need to add a "gotcha" line aimed at other players or classes of players. It lessens the impact of otherwise good comments. Some folks like that stuff, but I think it's what lowers participation in forums. YMMV 🙂 For what it is worth, I play all available ship types. The behavior that I become annoyed/disappointed/disgusted with is crying & whining. It's especially unnecessary when, with a bit of effort spent to learn how to play better, one could achieve success. 🙂 1 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