Figment

It’s not a good thing for WG to test new concepts like this, since it “pollutes” people’s stats with potentially unbalanced matches. And it is problematic they hand them out to just about anyone, making it frequently uneven fights on skill level. Given the subs are at least on par with one another, just skill dependent and usually subs not being decisive units, not as bad as facing IS-4s and IS-7s in WoT while they had an armour bug that made them literally impervious to damage for months on end though…

Only for the first two iterations of subs. Half the teams consisted of bots. Since then it has been test, ranked and randoms.

They did do that a couple times at first, before they implemented air strike ASW.

Or trying to see whereabouts enemy ships are by setting off their AA… Or perhaps in some cases hoping they mistake them for Dutch air strikes and make an evasive action they can abuse. There are people who don’t pay attention who react to that.

Yeah, I usualy play alone, in which case people following up on DCP notifications (which I always drop in chat) is... lacking. In that sense, taking the use of DCP into account, IFHE should actually be a bit more reliable if the stationary test was strongly reliant on burns continueing unchallenged and without Fire Prevention and burn flags/HP restore flags to improve resillience to fire damage. In that sense, the IFHE has a bit of an advantage where it comes to repairs and heals, but a disadvantage in that you require more relative exposure time (while a burning out can be done without having a shot on target). May I assume IFHE damage counts more like AP damage and thus is harder to restore with heals?

Or is it! Depends on the range, but I've hit up to 4 cits in one go at max. range with (ARP?) Kongo years ago. Poor New York didn't know what hit him. Still didn't sink it though, a Nagato picked it off seconds later with HE. >.>

Been pondering getting it on Cleve and Seattle next, the first 4pt skill went into stealth instead. I feel they do too many HE volleys without any damage at all (volleys that are just module damage and ricochets). I've had it with Cleveland where I'd try going full flamethrower from cover and would hit 140+ times, but dealt just <50K damage total, which is utter crap for HE spam. I wonder if IFHE would have made a big difference there.

To mitigate shotgunning DDs (without much counterplay) and make DDs less vulnerable in general, I would recommend going with an automatic change between deepwater (periscope depth) and regular torpedoes at surface level, where a sub has to be surfaced to even hit a DD with torps, making it extra vulnerable to attack and countermeasures and will likely be spotted sooner. The moment a sub is chased underwater, it literally couldn't hit a DD anymore, while at surface level, it'd basically act as a gunless DD and be spotted too early and long to avoid taking damage altogether if it wanted to do more than a single volley of torpedoes at any given range. In that case shotgunning might not be such a big problem anymore as one of the problems for a DD approaching is not knowing when and where torps will be coming from for about 4km closing distance. Meanwhile making it easier for the DD to get an accurate bearing on the sub if it were to dive and would give it a window in which it could freely damage the sub with HE if the sub decided to dive. The sub thus gets a choice to stay on the surface to fight the DD (and likely lose a lot if not all hp to the DD and its allies) or flee and give full initiative and advantage to the DD tracking it down. The use of deepwater torpedoes at periscope depth would also make it less likely that DDs get hit by a stray torpedo aimed at a BB, CV or cruiser. And of course you could increase activation distance, but I think the biggest issue is the free shots a sub gets during a DDs approach (if the sub is prepared for firing in the right direction anyway).

As with the ASW improvement poll, now a poll for the sub weapon systems.- It should be seen as being in lock step with other changes.

So if I’m to analyse the results so far, it would seem there is a significant preference for: - dumbfire - an alternate form of homing torpedoes than today - I would guestimate that in terms of homing the preference lies with a homing system that can be influenced on the recipient end, rather than one that is fully automated - Far from everyone feels homing should be limited to sub vs sub only (only 5 out of at least 17 voters), but there is some preference for this. Could be overlap with dumbfire preference - There seems to be a desire for subs to play in such a way that there is a single big strike or small series of smaller strikes, but a lot of time between high amounts of damage. Time to hunt subs or get away? - People clearly prefer short to medium range - All ranges with relatively lower torp speeds (compared to now) - Some desire for torpedo depth differences, making it easier for certain ships to attack subs - A larger activation window would be desired so subs can’t shotgun in close quarters. - No clear convergence of opinions regarding max torpedo range at lower tiers. (Could be a nation specific variable then?)

Sooooo… he says why don’t you explain what to do, moments after I spend time explaining what to do… Somehow magically concluding then that I would never do so otherwise anywhere in thousands of posts and topics made, or live during playing the game to help newbees out and in fact that even if I would not have posted a field manual at any time in my life that would somehow discredit me… Curious argument. Sounds like someone is clutching at straws, but has no actual argument to make, so attempting character murder with wild claims and insinuations is all that is left. What makes you think I didn’t and don’t explain to new players how to play? Why are you keen to stereotype and suggest things about people when they are clearly the opposite? Do you need to project your own lack of helping others so much on other people to not feel bad about yourself? Because I do help out others. I wonder why you think strawmanning without evidence is such a great tactic? Is it just because you are a really bad debater and extremely biased who cannot even accept that he’s in fact defending abusive behaviour? I think very little of you already, do you have to make it worse? So what do you lot do when you come across Clans using nothing but OP considered Russian radar cruisers in clan wars and after whining on forums and see that nothing changed? Do you harass the players? Do you ostracize them? Do you suggest to TK them when you come across them in game in other ships? Do you see people adopt similar tactics and go full hypocrit? Hmmmmmmm… I wonder…

Again, in my T3 Bogatyr I’ve been agile enough to ward of two CV attacks at the same time and kill both of them after one another. With T4 Arkansas B, you got so much range and alpha striking power you just need to have a CV spotted for you and it should be dead within three volleys. It is slow enough to actually dodge with a reasonable turn and sturdy enough to take some hits. Those are the ships without AA. Torps are too slow and low health (need floodings to work) and rockets locking are easy to dodge for small damages at most with a cruiser. Only dive bombers could pose an issue and most CV players have issues lining those up on turning ships. And no, in T3 and 4 you’re not going to get whacked that much for turning avoiding a CV as enemy range is bad and often they’re too dispersed to even have a shot on you if you pick the right paths. What you describe IMO goes for bad players. On the other hand, I find it much easier to use DD torp strikes or BB main guns for instant death (especially on cruisers) at those tiers, before they can react. I find this to be a double standard. Uh huh. No point in explaining how to make it harder for you to line up aircraft attacks, right? Like: steer towards my torp planes, change speed and angle for rockets and avoid the splashy bits or show your side to my dive bombers. Not, manage your repairs and don’t instantly repair so you don’t get caught on fire or flooding for minutes after the second strike. No, just “give up now and I’ll use your defeatism to my advantage. To beat a CV you have to decrease its DPS, making it waste time lining up shots. Every additional second gives you time to approach, that does not mean avoid all damages, it means weather the storm till you can obliterate it when it gets within range with your much higher DPS. At T3-5 that’s very doable for someone who knows how to (which is one of the reasons T4 CVs are so powerful as noobs are thrown in the deep), and I agree that Hosho is best of these CVs with how the torps work. Hermes is IMO by far the worst. I have a much bigger issue with the massive strike numbers at TX, where higher damage avoidance is virtually impossible, not in the least because of the dive bomb damage per hit. But that is more an implementation issue (damage per shot and number of attacks balancing issue where there is too much DPS), than a fundamental problem with the concept of having the class. However, I blame WG for that, not the players that use them. They cannot be blamed for design flaws, they have no control either, they opt to use them for whatever reason they have. And while you and me may find that distasteful to use, someone else may have a different threshold for what is considered too OP to use. Some might find the Hermes OP, I pity the person choosing to use its torp planes. The differences between the effectiveness and validity of various aircraft squadrons per nation shows this is largely just a design choice and balance issue. Too much emphasis on extreme variation in variables between CVs to make them unique, rather than balanced.

Constant vilification and dehumanization excuses and justifications in order to excuse harassment, pestering and bullying. And refusing to see, preferring to troll instead. Pretty sad, shame to see such extensive toxicity being considered not just acceptable, but to be pushed as the norm. Of course blaming others for their own toxic behaviour. :/

Because, and that answers most of the remainder, what is seal clubbing is absolutely subjective and cannot be determined by WG as it comes down to motivation and personal freedom of the players. WG has no business in deciding for us who and who does not feel comfortable playing. Basically, WE decided we feel bad about easy winning. Some people do not. There's no common standard and WG has no reason to tell players what ships to use when. That has nothing to do with players. Morality is subjective and individual. There's only the EULA to keep to and anything else is an addition you make for yourself and are not in your right to enforce on others, especially not by means of violating the EULA you signed up to. A lot of people in this thread are defending violating the Terms of Service they agreed to because of their personal subjective opinions on something. That is NOT acceptable. You don't get that there's no such thing as a common shared standard among ALL players. There's no code of conduct that you sign up to beyond what's in the Terms of Service / EULA. You can however determine FOR YOURSELF a code on what you personally will and will not do, because you may not feel comfortable with it. That however, is personal. People might share such a code due to agreeing with it, but if they don't there's nothing that should stop them or penalize them for not doing so. And that can and should be done with respect and the possibility to agree to disagree. Regardless of how you feel about it. It doesn't require abuse and forcing people by dictating to them what they should and shouldn't do That's just really childish tbh. You're free to hold that opinion, you're free to tell others how you feel, but you do not have any rights to any form of prosecution or penalty handing out. That includes unsollicited abuse, where as long as they don't violate any game rules set by WG, you're not free to berate or disrespect people That goes for every class of ships, you don't seem to understand what I said. :/ Suggest you take a bit more care in reading what is written down. Things like spawncamping tend to be unintended design consequences and might have rules attached to it that GMs supervise on. The same is true for borderhugging exploiting, constantly going out of your way to get an unintended design flaw advantage out of a bug is purposeful abuse of a bug. But simply dropping bombs with a bomber as intended during normal combat in game does not fall into that category. This is simply intended gameplay. It can never qualify as a form of abuse. If there were some sort of trick to use a bug to always get a citadel hit for instance and it would be expressed by WG that this isn't supposed to happen and should be frowned upon by GMs, then that would constitute abuse. No, it cannot, because it requires motive and intent, which for the CV player is likely to be the same as selecting a DD or cruiser. You are attributing such malintend. You're using a strawman fallacy and character attack to try to make a point here, which is dishonestly reaching for straws. Problem is you probably think you got a point, or you don't care enough about it, because you've already dehumanized CV players to such a force of evil that you'll be okay with anything. There's plenty of other people who did that and it's very troubling to see people able to become so hostile towards other people for superficial reasons by creating stereotypes to attack. You made a particular reference earlier, you might want to think if you're really okay with judging so superficially and judgmentally. Definition of the very basis of this game? Compete as a team to gain an upperhand over the enemy team using various warships of various classes related interactions, where each class has distinct advantages and disadvantages with respect to other classes. CVs and subs fall perfectly in that definition as well. IMO the problem is that the classes were poorly impolemented I'm well aware that a lot of players made it into "surface ships with ballistic missile systems", but that's a much narrower definition than Wargaming ever provided since the announcement of the game (CVs were already mentioned before alpha). What you have in this game is a group of wishful thinkers who try to monopolise the game around their personal, limited, gameplay preferences to the point they're arrogant enough they think they're entitled to driving other people out, by any means they have at their disposal. Sorry, but I will never subscribe to that IMO utterly despicable line of reasoning. Simple, read the Terms of Service / EULA. You're not a GM. You're not allowed to play judge or intervene. Which is not the player's fault, so just moan at WG, not at players. By all means, you can complain about the flaws, you just can't take out that frustration on other players without there potentially being consequences for you as you'd be in violation of the Terms of Service which you explicitly had to sign up to. In other words, you'd be in breach of contract. That CV or sub player? They're not. EULA/ToS. It's not in there. So no, you can't. Period. Point me out where it says you get the right to harass other players if you deem someone using a concept at all which you consider to have a design flaw as abusive or unfair. Can guarantee you there's no such right. Quite the contrary. Yes, you are saying it's okay to harass CV players. You just don't like to think of yourself as a bully and made up very bad excuses for it, thinking that because there's a lot of impopularity of CVs this somehow gives you mob rule powers. Doesn't work that way, it's called just acting as a self-important arsehole.

Unfortunately WG often only changes or develops UI after it's been widely spread in mods. :/ Playing games vanilla gives you a bit of an information and UI disadvantage at times. Some mods apparently also prevent you going into battle without accidentally spending gold on flags or without camo. I still prefer Vanilla as I don't want any such edges over other players (who play vanilla), but WG really should do more about basic Quality of Life issues so the information and UI playing field remains equal. Unfortunately, there is little incentive for that as it doesn't generate a profit or improve retention rates, so it's a nice to have with very low priority to WG.

A Skane or so has a field day with torps against any smoking DD, but DWT DD can also be overwhelmed if you can outangle them in the gunfight while they're busy with dodging torps you don't have to worry about.

Havn't really used Fletcher much since they changed the torpedo angles (by accident, not even sure if they changed it back or made it a feature), but that severely reduced its steeper torp angles for full drop, making it far more prone to taking damage and harder to use in a DD duel. Not sure if I would consider it the gold standard at this point. I think Benham takes that now.

Hosho is by far the strongest T4 CV (still at only an average 52% WR on WoWs stats, because there's just that many bad players too), but there's a lot of ships you can abuse at seal club levels. Take any random BB at T4. In fact, let's take one without AA. https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4281284592,Arkansas-Beta/?order=battles__desc#leaderboard People play T4 for thousands of battles to skew their average WR. The Arkansas B (without AA) even has people with thousands of battles on it at 60-67% WR. Sure, Hosho is the most flexible and therefore powerful CV at T4, but that's the kind of seal clubbing that goes beyond a regular grind and moving up and I mentioned before. Even so, that's their perogative and choice to do, but that's not true for every single player, so you can't just excuse abuse hurled at any CV player because of the people that seal club. And you know that I'm all for letting CV lines start at T5, changing AA mechanics and what not. Even so, I'm not going to blame CV players for the state of the design, or using them (well) as intended. As said, it's why I personally don't play low tiers with pretty much anything for longer than is needed to grind through it (I don't want to use free exp on it either given I don't have that much play time and getting to some free exp ships without premium or converting can be a pain if you got a RL). But those are due to my personal standards. A lot of people feel the same way, but that's still subjective. It doesn't give me the right to abuse these people. I would however enjoy defeating them when I do grind and come across them. But since I don't use mods I don't really notice and I don't care. It barely impacts me since T4 CVs can be dodged quite easily in comparison to T10 CVs. Hell, killed plenty CVs with Bogatyr and that's not exactly big on AA either. Speaking of Bogatyr... https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4186879440,Bogatyr/?order=battles__desc#leaderboard Someone has 15.000 matches in a Bogatyr. With a 65% WR. Someone else 4500ish battles at 73% WR. 1100 at 87%... Mine's at 61% at 28 matches, up from 11% WR after 11 matches (despite ending first place in 7 of those 11 matches and thus had a huge ego incentive to turn those stats around to something more palatable). For me, once I got it around 60% it was done, I could probably get it to 70-80% if I really wanted to and keep up the rate of wins, but there's so little incentive to seal club for me it's not worth it, clearly other people feel different about that though. Poor Bogatyr, being targeted by CVs all the time without AA... Oh, wait, it's still a very effective ship for seal clubbing.

Ok I’m going to skip to the important bit. You mean like five times citadel on a cruiser? ;) Abusing is for example what I said about choosing seal clubbing for the reason of seal clubbing. Simply using a CV is not abusing. I can abuse an Albion, or any other TI to V for high winrates. I mean… Besides, not all CVs can have a high winrate as for every win there’s a CV losing. That is a personal choice and personal argument. I don’t play low tiers beyond minor grind for the same reason. I can’t however demand someone to not play that tier either due to being too good for it, especially not if they just enjoy it. I also can’t say they must be playing to seal club. If it is, it’s their personal choice and you can have your opinion about that, but it doesn’t give you the right to unilaterally break in game social rules. No, it’s not. When players interact they can opt to deliberately do something to upset others. In WoWs you can for instance undermine your own team out of spite. Attacking enemies is never abusive unless you use an edge that gives you an automatic win. CVs cannot give an automatic win, as there are equal amounts on both sides. You can of course get a situation where the one CV is much better than others due to poor balancing, but it’s not per definition anything but 50% on average, just unequally spread over players. This is called “dehumanization”. You do not sling abuse at an inanimate object. You harass the player controlling it. This is an absolutely disgusting attempt to excuse trolling of people by pretending they don’t even exist as humans with feelings, while you know damn well that the abuse is meant to discourage people to stop playing CVs or subs. It may be “just business” in your mind, but you consider the mental health of these players acceptable collateral damage. BS. Again, BS. No. That is your definition of it. It is a relatively slow DPS play that competes with high DPS. It has to be able to avoid being targeted to make it even chance. That balance isn’t quite right at all times. Particularly low and highest tier. Hugely different. If you can’t see why you should realise that you’re being highly subjective and demanding that people maintain your personal choice to not play a ship class. You can do that without abuse. Tried politely asking? And if they don’t comply, fair enough, their choice. Not your choice to determine what they can and can’t play by the rules of the game. Depends on view mode. And whether the CV is spotted within range. In the end, you’re here the one trying to defend verbal and other abuse.

Yeah, certain idiots keep opening their mouth and protesting against posts protesting against abusive actions by players. Weird huh? Bye (on ignore).

Once some of those decisions are made it’s hard to course correct though. But I find this to be incompetence and possibly overconfidence and doubling down, rather than “malice for profit” as some people indicate. I don’t think submarines and profit are going to be highly related. Especially not as silver grind lines. The few premiums they might add probably won’t sell in huge numbers (though work on its model might be relatively low effort due to lack of kibble, so could be a relatively big margin). …So far so good… And there it is. This, is blame shifting. So players are forced to? Really? No. Frustration doesn’t necessarily lead to abuse from players towards other players. That is always a personal choice by those players. Being angry or frustrated with developers is no excuse to take it out on innocent bystanders. You think I’m happy with WG? Should I now go out and shoot someone? Frankly, this is the sort of argument some people use to try and justify domestic abuse. It is even the kind of reasoning used by a lot of domestic terrorists. They are the “real” victim of Big Bad X, not those they take it out on! Fact is, they are the ones who lack a sense of control, so they seek a way to feel powerful. Thus they look for victims. All actions that constitute abuse are a person’s own responsibility and choice. At no time is taking your frustration out on other players acceptable behaviour.

There were also rumours about the Kitakami making a return around the same time. But I find it more likely that they figured protecting players from bad and malintentioned players and with a fairly simple move remove a source of frustration would increase player retention rate, while lowering the workload of GM’s responding to reports. Thus increasing or maintain profits by reducing costs and maintaining/increasing profit margins.

Good, so you admit that it is a pointless thing to do. We are making progress. That said, sounds like stopping to purchase and promoting is a better tactic. In fact, that is what caused WG’s u-turn on the Missouri. So don’t bully players. It doesn’t do anyone any good. Wait, what? Where did I say this? Shouldn’t you be in bed, prepping for school to learn comprehensive reading?

You implied numerous times there is no other course of action for players left and devs are pushing players to do this. Neither is true, it is shifting blame for players actions to developers. I didn’t accuse you of any particular actions, I accused you of scapegoating, shifting blame, removing personal responsibility for own actions (the action of players) and basically justifying abuse by players. I don’t recall accusing you of any specific action despite you indicating you are understanding, possibly sympathetic to the sort of action and lean to the kind of justification argumentation used.

Is what I read.