Figment

1. They really are not. They shouldn’t be too easy to sink either, you already know their route, they will advance into any torpedoes or blockade and are really easy to take out 2. That depends on the team you are up against. 3. Not at all, the islands are great for German brawler BBs to get close enough. Think playing an Odin/Tirpitz/Kii with torpedoes and Bismarck with secondaries and hydro. The American BBs have plenty time to reload in safety and French and British BBs can flank into the side of enemy ships. The map is very suited to these types of ships. You need to learn to use it to your advantage. 4. It is one way of winning, but simply communicate a plan with them in advance and backseat drive with suggestions and info on where the easier target is (in a polite way). If that doesn’t help, good for the DD. Deserved win. 5. This happens when you don’t tell them at the start where they should go. Make a plan with the group, most sane people will follow a basic game plan (do not expect to micromanage them). And don’t just tell them what to do, but why (screen with buffer zone). 6. Too busy with dockyard grind to go for convoy mode missions at all personally. 1. No 2. No 3. I’m sure they will change this up regularly.

This Bumblebee is a Volkswagen Beetle, yes.

Guys, I know most of you are noobs in the realm of TransFormers collections, but trust me on this, I've been collecting TransFormers for approximately three decades and have about two thousand of them (I gave up counting them to be fair, could be more...). Hell, I even worked on some official TransFormers comics including The Movie adaptation by IDW as a colourist and worked with a lot of TF comic book artists (see our artsies here: http://hansime.deviantart.com ). It's pretty much impossible to even collect all Optimus Prime figurines and spin-offs over the past 37 years. Probably why you can collect the same commanders over and over in these loot containers. Nobody probably even knows how many versions of Optimus and Megatron are out. Let alone Starscream, Grimlock and Bumblebee. Even http://www.tfu.info gave up on keeping full score of all the variants. But even if you did know the amount, there's no way you could afford them all even if you won a million in the lottery. Don't bother trying to complete this by anything but accident because these guys will suck your money dry and you'll be forking it over every time they bring out something you really shouldn't buy, but absolutely need. And ffs I need that Haslab Unicron, but I'll probably never have it. :p

No. A designed advantage is not dishonest unless it's hidden. Everyone is aware of the design choices and the reasons for these design choice have been shared. We can disagree with the choices, but they've not lied about them so it's not dishonest. Poorly designed, yes. Dishonest, no. He was. Widely adored even and sadly to this day there are those who call themselves his followers. The point is that the statements you refer to with regards to Wargaming and certain units are marketing half- truth statements. Technically true, but not necessarily the best reflection of reality for the entire populace. And if you want change you'll have to realise you're dealing with humans, not a robotic company front. I resort to personal critiques and character flaws, call out prejudices etc. certainly, that's different from a personal attack. I'm also open to you explaining your position if you think I got it wrong (see this thread for two examples), I don't think you are capable of admitting you were wrong as easily. You can either choose to learn from the critique or continue applying flawed and improper reasoning. I have not violated the TOS. Any "personal attacks" you refer to have been critiques calling out people on things like lies, inaccuracies, prejudices, bullying and bad faith argumentation. That's not a violation of the TOS. You should probably take a good look at your own posts however.

3 patches is pretty quick, given they needed to work up a replacement, test it on PTS and implement it. They listened. It got removed. That you have unrealistic expectations of implementation speed is your problem. That you think they'll always going to take your call over their own judgment (where being convinced by being show results is more likely than being convinced by someone making a prediction. Just look at Brexit, half the country was warned it'd be bad and they still went on with it and are doing so to this day. WG is WAAAAAAY more responsive than the British government!). Don't underestimate the power of ego and willful ignorance. Trump supporters are now trying to blame liberals for making it impossible to accept the vaccin without being bullied by "I told you so" liberals. I mean... Yeah, it can take years for people to admit their mistakes to themselves, let alone others. That's fine. Already explained how you're being dishonest... You ignoring that and pretending I never pointed it out already doesn't exactly create "trust" in your capacity for self-critique. Ah... Uhm... Random irrelevant comment? K. Provide constructive critique? Really. So you got CVs fixed then?

Care to provide evidence? Right, no company ever does a formal internal or external review to see what went wrong if there's a significant downturn effect from a product implementation. And yes, WG's executives will be keeping an eye on the results of these additions. It's not like they have that many games running that they can't know what's new. (8 titles, of which 3 WoWs variants and 3 WoTs variants... WoP and Master of Orion). Given they have three WoWs variants, they will be very keen on knowing the effect of adding subs, since they'll have to decide whether to implement them in their other formats as well. Yes, nothing says "happy" with the status quo like significantly changing and expanding countermeasures to change the entire anti-sub warfare balance for ships under the status quo having no ASW countermeasures... Allow me to roll my eyes as you shoot your own arguments down with your "proof". And why are they making changes? Because people complained about not having countermeasures in certain ships... So they actually do listen. Problem is that what happens when they actually listen to (certain whiny) players, they tend to overcompensate. The next iteration game balance, the ships previously without ASW actually will likely have more easily applied ASW than a lot of DDs and cruisers with dedicated onboard systems for ASW. Largely obsoleting the niche DD role as these ASW abilities are airborne large territory covering ASW capabilities and thus much easier to engage subs with, which will reduce sub survivability significantly and thus will reduce their viability significantly. Hint: if they were actually happy with the results, they'd not have felt they needed to change anything, period. Including not handing out ASW to more ships. Oh and didn't you lot claim it'd be added directly to randoms after the previous season of ranked? Care to explain how it's still in testing in Ranked? Or can we just move the goalposts on "they'll implement it like this" after each patch until you're "right"? They will add them at some point I'm sure, but they're clearly not satisfied with the balancing yet. I presume they'll wait at least one more season of ranked to see how the dynamics between the classes changed now that everyone gets ASW. My bet is that thanks to the fastly expanded ASW proliferation, subs will die much faster, after which they'll either have to nerf ASW capabilities in general (fewer or weaker depth charges per drop) or buff sub endurance to deal with the additional threats. It's not like they survive two air attacks as is. We've definitely not seen the last of the tweaks to subs, but the way it moves we're likely to see more buffs to stealth and general survivability, than homing torp balancing. At least I know something.

So this is how Ultra Magnus felt when he tried to open the original TF loot container. For the uninitiated:

Those players that you talk about go into subs don't come from a new pool of players though. If others leave, the issues are clear. Sub popularity won't be any health indicator of the game. Overall game population will be. A cursory independent enquiry would easily dismiss such arguments. Agree, but with the caveat that they could also opt for #3, which is to decide to reset part of the development. Art and large parts of the current code would be possible to reapply even in significant changes to gameplay mechanics. It wouldn't be a huge waste. I think the answer to 1 is "almost, but missed the mark significantly enough to not be able to implement it for another year", so to me, the answer to 2 is yes. But again basically it's #3: a rework is probably required on base mechanics like the torpedo and detection mechanics and special abilities. Balancing ASW is going to be another long running issue. Particularly the balance between ASW from safe distance and ASW close and personal. I don't think so, all companies must accept that not all projects succeed. It's a risk decided on by management. If this were a company with less financial clout than WG, okay. But they can allow a side-project to fail. But having to find and work in new developers into the code and all is far more costly than accepting a setback. I can imagine some manager picking a scapegoat given recent events. However, I agree that the chances of them opting for simply implementing it are higher, mostly on a basis of lacking quality decisionmaking.

It's an issue, but my point is cover ups aren't really possible. They can't hide the numbers of player totals in game and money spend. Their management is not going to look at the amount of people playing subs. They'll look at the financial bottom line. Dude, we were talking about an unit class and the players using them being labeled sanctioned cheats, exploiters, dishonest, etc. That is a really messed up argument made. None of that is "dishonest". Poorly designed sure. I'd personally have designed CVs completely different from the instances we've had in game. But dishonest? It's clearly communicated what their features are, there's no hidden deception. Do they play by different rules than the other ships? Sadly yes, but that isn't dishonest, it's an implemented class feature, specifications and therefore gameplay advantage. Whether it's balanced and proper design I completely agree is very debatable. But "dishonest", "exploiting" or "cheating" it is not. Fun and engaging is subjective stuff. Ask a politician if their policies are liked. It won't be a lie if they say yes, because someone will like them. What I see in WG's employees is a lot of insecurity, a lot of rigidity and a lack of capacity to share and take critique. That may have various reasons, likely management reasons, but it results in a very prickly and defensive, even scapegoating attitude often enough. That's not a great environment for creativity, innovation and improvement. Likely certain departments and shareholders have too much influence (talking in particular about the monetization department being empowered by the shareholders) as their model seems to be skewing to how can we implement stuff that can be milked instantly, rather than how can we make something better/great and have it result in a revenue stream and small spin-off incomes (like camos).

In that case I stand corrected as I interpreted it as a specific dig at the class and the people who use it. You do realise that potatoes sit on BBs especially, but are also found on DDs and cruisers? :/ OF COURSE they will be on those other ships. The reason you notice them on the CVs is because of the impact that one or two CV has on your team's performance if they're handled by potatoes, whereas for every other ship class you get potentially good players to compensate. It's not the class that attracts them, it's the MM that exposes them. The same will likely be true for subs as I presume they'll have a limited MM as well. I disagree, we'll just notice how unbalanced they are wrt to their opposition on the other team. And given the amount of potatoes roaming around in the other classes, they get their chance to catch completely unawares a lot of dare we say... idiots. Even bad players can't miss every shot, but some bad players manage to catch everything thrown their way.

Don't disagree. I think their main issue is range though. I'd have liked to see a fuel economy for CVs (which could lead to lost aircraft). Attrition management should really be the key in defeating CVs IMO. As is they can just loiter forever if they want. I also don't like the concept of dropping fighters without at least dropping some aircraft from the squadron for instance. Again, that'd result in attrition gameplay and harder choices to be made by CV operators. T4 CVs in general should be moved up to T5 with a limited, protected MM (T5-6 , but no T6 CVs as opponent). It's a very situational ship too IMO. The bouncy stuff is possible to mitigate. True, I'll leave it here.

Sure, let's count them. I can't say much about the Russian CVs yet. Russian CVs seem bad at spotting in comparison as they attack in one go, but otherwise they have the barely impossible to dodge number of torps issue. The below is my personal opinion. I don't do CW, so I can't speak for those situations. T4, fine: Rhein (rather situational and weak against DDs), Hermes (UK CV are a bit weak overall IMO due to being very reliant on HE fires), Hosho (good torps really), Langley (mediocre joat). Each with strengths and weaknesses to exploit by different unit classes. T6, fine: Ranger (mediocre joat), Weser (situational, good dive bombers), Furious (bit meh, but lots of HE bombs), Ark Royal, never encountered the Béarn. The Ise hybrid is very player dependent, but launches so few strikes and wastes so much DPS on the main guns it's not really a problem overall. Can't say I have personally had issues with Loewenhardt, but let's call that and Ryujo in need of some minor balancing. I personally don't have a major issue with the Ryujo either, but it's pretty clear it's a bit more potent than the other carriers. T8, fine: Shokaku (bit weak uptiered even), Parseval, Graf Zeppelin, Implacable, Indomitable, never seen the Sanzang. I can't say the hybrid Tone impresses me. I have some issues with the amount of aircraft and spread on the US carriers (Midway/Enterprise) and to a lesser extend Kaga engaging at once, but they're somewhat tolerable still. T10, fine: Hakuryu, von Richthoven, Immelmann, Audacious Again some issues with the amount, health and spread of the US carriers, but they're tolerable still. Not a single CV stops me from playing a carry game. Long range radar cruisers and DDs otoh are a pain due to the sheer amount of them and unequal distribution, which is mostly a MM issue afaic. If there's a problem while playing DDs it's them. Now, that's considering within the current system and mechanics of CVs. I'd personally prefer a different setup and limitations, but within the status quo that's my opinion.

Did they remove Deadeye? You mean that code by an employee with the power to create bonuscodes who was held to account after the internal administrative rounds were done and subsequent apology for that employees actions? Ah yes. Slow response indeed, but a response nonetheless. You speak of dishonesty while being dishonest. I call out hypocrisy when I see it. They need constant checking unfortunately especially given their recent QA disasters with torps and the like, but we agree on this one.

Maybe you should learn to read all parts of the same post instead of quoting out of context. Ah dishonesty, we meet again. Man, you people do love your strawmen arguments.

Orly. You're not at all being disgustingly denegrating towards people you think use "simplistic easy win OP ship classes"... Right. Think I found the dishonesty yet again. You can make your arguments without having to resort to insulting stereotypes. There are plenty of good players who play these ships, if not just to learn how to counter them by finding their weaknesses, as there are lots and lots and lots of bad players who play your favourite ships. It doesn't say anything about the player just because they play any particular class. You on the other hand, are one of those people who'd rather resort to stereotypes and bullying than make a proper argument. I'm all in favour of discussing the bad aspects of CVs, subs or any other class, but if you're just going to spam arbitrary and inaccurate insults because you're a prejudiced person, then you're just not worth talking to. Any valid points you have are just drowned in pathetic insults.

Well maybe for really bad players who expect all their enemies to sit still in front of them because they can't handle indirect combat. True. Do tell about the lies and the cheating and the deceptions. Do you even know what dishonesty means? If you wern't lying your arse off this wouldn't be so ironic. One hit wonder. Try again. THINK ABOUT IT. You think in conspiracies when you should be thinking in (in)competence: You claim they put it in and claim it is a huge success and then leave it forever. AND YOU BRING UP DEADEYE, A FEATURE TWEAKED AND REMOVED WITHIN THE SPAN OF A COUPLE PATCHES. Yes, they'll probably introduce stuff, but not because they hate you or don't care or just do it because of investment done, they'll do it because THEY - for whatever reason - will think it's fine and balanced at that time. Whether or not it is. You won't ever accept that it might be balanced, in terms of combat prowess though, since you don't like the concept. Yet you proclaim it to be OP and unsuiting for a different reason: you don't like the sort of challenge it brings to your doorstep. You're the one being dishonest here. No, your point is about speculative projection and strawmanning. The pattern you think you're seeing is one of incompetence, not malevolence as you imply.

CVs aren’t a huge problem unless you’re a bad player. They can and should be done differently but they’re acceptable as is with the exemption of a couple variants that are poorly balanced. Where is this Deadeye you speak off now? Ah wait, you just proved me right: they thought they had a good idea, but then had to change it.

You should probably play some subs before thinking it’s easymode…

lol. Because declining income really wouldn’t be obvious to trace back to a specific patch… This is [edited]. They cannot afford to do that. If they implement it in a bad way it is because they are convinced they got it right. Whether or not it is.

Killed more with DD than anything else so far though. Even rushing across the map to still beat a BB dropping three times. But yes, in the right hands the BB airdrop damage is easy-ish to use and can be deployed from a lot of places subs can’t attack. Especially if they get multiple strikes. There is little to nothing a sub can do to counter these attacks that take significantly less effort than even the ping system and can also do devastating damage without even having to hit directly. Especially if the sub is already damaged. Not that the whiners here care about their own capacity to devastate subs regardless of its captain’s skill. They are just that much of a glass cannon. These “boring” and “dynamic” gameplay comment confound me though. It is as though these instant gratification people think they should own everything and every tool in every game and have no room for other people (arrogant self-centrism). Especially those feeble minded egocentric people who proclaim this game is only for a certain type of engagement that they personally like. I have zero respect for that attitude. CVs and subs can easily work in this game, but you have to accept that you’re not the scissors to every paper. You can be hit by rock. You can still beat rock, but you will be disadvantaged. Boohoo. Deal with it, grow a pair and find a work around. Like cruisers do against BB and DD against cruisers. Stealth gameplay isn’t about constant action. Especially not with glass cannons. It is about timing and patience. It is hit and run. It is about knowing when to reveal yourself and when to hide and evade. It doesn’t have to be for everyone. It doesn’t have to be 90% action and patience is a skill that is undervalued too much. Personally I would prefer it if a match with subs was balanced by having a higher degree of DDs and cruisers in it as escort ships that would need to screen. BBs don’t need to be able to engage everything alone without substantial risk either. Most other classes cannot do everything without teamwork either. Cruisers and DD should be at risk of being hit, but should have the upper hand normally. That is why homing torps are problematic as is. And not even because they can home, but because they steer too well. Nimble targets should have an evasion chance.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think the senior management at WG will be happy to discover that the developers have spent two years and substantial amounts of money working on a new class that by implementing it too soon in a bad way will drive players away and generates negative return on investment?

Popularity may not be the prime reason to buff. The assumptions about that made here are entirely simplified projection and speculative about "evil/spreadsheet WG" and focused on a single statistic: amount of use. I get it, WG is frustrating and they look at spreadsheets more than emotional player experience (and do we have emotional people on forums :P ). But IMO is popularity the last statistic you look at, because use is irrelevant beyond one thing: how did the amount of use skew the class distribution per match? There can be a lot of reasons for the amount of subs in a game mode where competition and therefore relative security in unit choices is very important. Let's face it, taking a unit you don't master into ranked is a severe risk to your game to game performance. Particularly when it's not even a decisive type of unit per se. Besides, there are match maker limitations on the amount of subs,f if we've learned anything over the past years is that DDs are the best bet to progress in Ranked. And since they're best suited for ASW that hasn't changed. It's the easiest unit to adapt with to the new situation. So let's consider the option that they've looked at other statistics for their balancing. Things one might consider when balancing are the following: Amounts of torps fired / match Ping hit % + Double ping % Hits while (double) pinged Ship economy Hitrate % Survival rate win vs loss Max + Average damage (% against various ship types) win vs loss Max + Average kills / match win vs loss Ping citadels / match win vs loss Frequence of devastating strike Average play time win vs loss Distance travelled Dive vs submerged time What ships were targeted predominantly (sub vs sub, DDs, cruisers, BBs?) Detection time Potential damage received vs damage received Units scouted / match win vs loss Scouting damage / match win vs loss Types of ships that damaged/killed subs Frequency of use of the special abilities Basically determine how much of - and what kind of - an impact the sub had during the match, if the limiting mechanics limited them or if they were too restrictive. You know, the job of unit balancing. Of course that's within their boundary of not changing up game mechanics as implemented, which of course is highly related, but takes more time than tweaking. And of course, I can't safely assume they've done their homework correctly based on past adjustments. However, I very much doubt unit popularity is anywhere near the main measurement right now. If you look at the above things, then I can certainly imagine that the ping mechanic and repairs resulted in a very low hit rate for homing torpedoes and a below average damage compared to other ship classes. That doesn't mean they couldn't have devastating strikes at times, but I wouldn't be surprised if other ship classes get those more often. While very easy to do on bots, those were rare against human players in my experience. Can't say the few subs I played did so well on average damage, often 10K-30K damage range, so I switched back to DDs, some cruisers I grinded and a couple BBs for variation quite quickly for Ranked. In my experience, most homing torps that are fired at close range at me in those ships miss as they are fired at such an angle that it requires the homing to make up for it in both depth and direction, while when fired from a distance I try to keep an island as possible cover nearby. As the torp speed is really high, they often just pass by when fired from close range as they don't have time to steer into my ships. I presume that's where the cone of fire increase comes from. The main issue WG seems to miss though is the idea that having your ammunition guided to target by the game is considered frustrating to many players. Not so much because it is inherently unfair (lots of other games have guided ammunition), but because it's the only unit that has this and because in certain circumstances these players feel powerless to do anything against a stealth threat that also gets a rather severe corrective aim assist when they try to avoid. As I said earlier, this fact can be exploited, but you need to be situationally aware and ready for it. It helps a lot to have R at your disposal and for many players this won't be the case. Regardless, I'd think a lot more work needs to be done on submarine gameplay overall before its released. It's a bit too basic and straight forward right now and minor tweaks and adding ASW arbitrarily to ships won't cut it. Do notice that the amount of aircraft attacks on subs (where one or two near miss strike can often kill subs already) doesn't make it very easy for them to survive either. So I would hope for submarine player sakes WG doesn't overdo spreading such ASW abilities to the point where the dedicated ASW units that risk their life and limbs (DDs and cruisers) are actually worse at ASW than arbitrary ships that get bomber support.

I havn’t had issues when facing subs either. Though I havn’t tried the tier X subs in ranked, nor grinded for gold. I’m sure those could have gone over the edge balance wise, but then it’s a matter of balancing still. Most the time the subs were lame duck DDs in my experience on t6 and 8 and barely instrumental to winning the match. Even when I played BBs - deliberately without ASW - I killed three with HE and they didn’t kill me once. But then the people who did die to them went for open water (easy to get pinged and aimed at) instead of island cover to break line of sight. It’s funny, because homing torps can be manipulated into terrain on your end and are therefore often easier to deal with… Subs lack a lot of situational awareness and can therefore often be caught off guard. The people complaining about them from a receiving end probably didn’t know yet how to deal with them and didn’t adapt their routine to the new normal in Ranked enough. Those same people who claim they are OP also often claim they are “boring” and “useless”, which suggests they’re impatient people who can’t decide whether something is OP or just potentially good in a single confrontation. I’m not really surprised by that. Again, I’d have done subs differently, but I can understand some of the tweaks. I just wish they’d change the ping mechanic to be more about situational awareness from both sides and do away with homing. Then add some more interesting sub-special buttons than weird battery and ping related stuff, because that is very unimaginative and silly.

“Some ships can attack without being seen: cheat!” Look, there are stupid arguments and then there is trashcan level arguments. If your goal is to convince someone, at least have the courtesy to be respectful and sincere. The only dishonesty here is from people trying to use bully tactics to get what they want. Which almost makes me wish subs as is on you. Just for fun. Almost. The same goes about the bullying used against CV players, all the insults just shows the person making such statements has issues. If you want to argue the higher intellect against other players, at least make an actual smart argument instead of showing yourself to be as petty and dumb as people can get.

Ah accidentally activating filters while having no idea those exist after reaching tier 9 at least once. That's what you get when people don't get a manual with their games anymore. :P I miss the times when this was normal to come with your game. At least you could shout at people "READ THE FFING MANUAL".