Figment

Sorry, there are no subs in ranked right now? :/ Yes, they were and are mediocre developers (see for example CVs, how radar and hydro moves through objects). They aren’t bad, but they’re humans and they cut corners. They didn’t put in subs to make it easier, they could also put out maps faster with less balance considerations, simpler physics, etc. Not because it couldn’t be done. And abstracting in a non-realistic fashion is common for WoWs. Like how they scaled ship size for balance sake, how aircraft move and attack, how fighter aircraft work, how AA works, hitpoints etc. Check scale of maps vs ship size. Yes, as I said those analyses were absolutely shortsighted and uncreative. Based on ONE status quo with RTS CVs (“which couldn’t be done differently either” if we were to believe players). No, based on how easy coop bots died to double pings, while in practice players don’t instantly use repair, if they’re smarter than bots or inexperienced. It was extrapolating hyperbole on an unrealistic shortterm situation. Read that again please? You’re projecting and putting words in my mouth. What I said is that they have improved a lot since april 2020 by removing exploits that were OP and making them far more fragile. They aren’t there yet, specially with ASW balance with some ships without any capacity, but the situation is incomparable with even slight modifications compared to earlier incarnations. Changes that have been completely ignored by the nay sayer crowd. I’m not saying they are ready to implement at all. See my thread. Resentment is a far too strong word, considering them selectively delusional, arrogant and hypocritical (ignore realism when it suits them and demand it when it suits them) is more accurate. I mean, claiming “it can’t be done” is a really big statement and it is made without any evidence and based on a flawed argument surrounding a particular status quo, both of which are now obsolete, because yes, it can be done (with necessary tweaks) in a new status quo. Stealthplay? Very attractive. Why would you need homing apart from under water? If you can torp devastatingly well with DDs without homing now with slower torps fired at a third less speed and longer reload times than these homing torps and no aiming beyond the indicator, exactly what evidence do you have you need this ping/homing mechanic? You realise you can dumbfire these homing torps too by simply never pinging and not give your target an early reason for evasive action? Try it and see if it is possible? Cause I have… Better results than with homing even, just no citadels (which there shouldn’t be, what is a torpedo belt for anyway). No… That they didn’t exactly. That is an oversimplification and not the main reason for changes. Some of those changes were more because the targeted wanted it differently, some people complained about looking at maps and the detachment from the others by playing primarily in map mode. Drowned out by vocal rebels bullying, I’m sorry, “advising”, people who give it to stop giving it. It is tiresome. And no, simply saying “can’t be done because someone said it can’t be done” is not a good argument. Copernicus was told similar. If one would have said “can’t see it working under current assumptions, mechanics and knowledge” then fine, but that isn’t what is being said. The interactions between classes as you put it were not defined then. BBs had no countermeasures and nobody even conceived of calling in bombers. Those are much better defined now, but not finished afaic. That is subjective and hypocritical, firing from cover/stealth is a huge part of the game and those are considered core acceptable gameplay mechanics. Sure not everyone is happy if they are the target, but then those are generally bad players who don’t know how to play and shift blame away from their choices. And because this argument is so poor it is one of the reasons I did not think they were very creative devs. Though the AA balance mess at the time certainly (and to a large degree continuing today) was another reason. Subjective. It brings back flanking stealth play which the abundance of radar largely removed in a more specialized, niche manner. So you are now saying it is possible to add them. You should read my arguments, not your own.

I made a thread on that, didn’t I? Every single thing I wrote in there is a pretty basic adjustment of what WG already has available with some extra consumables and balancing. Particularly around situational awareness and torp usage. Sticking to something said about half a decade ago based on a single design concept that was severely flawed and presumed certain sub speeds and the lacking presence of countermeasures in game at the time, among other things. It was a status quo analysis with little creativity and IMO little legitimacy as the intention was to avoid extra work with higher priority shiplines to be made. People love preconceived notions, because it stops them from having to think about it too much. I didn’t agree with them and the predominantly BB and “protect my playstyle” I-fear-change fearmongering bandwagon forum crowd then and I don’t agree now. Up till right before this release the anti-sub crowd ONLY argued about how OP they would be. Currently these same people are complaining not that it is OP, but ‘boring’ and ‘useless’. Which is entirely subjective and most seem to be arguments of convenience to not have to draw new conclusions: conclusions are the same but the goalposts suddenly moved. So excuse me if I don’t find these people very reliable. There is too much drama, hyperbole, personal interest and general resentment to expect these people to convince WG tbh. The latter won’t happen and isn’t needed. WG already made changes to subs which are too sub-tle for a lot of people to even notice or too political to acknowledge it seems. Such as: - ASW changed significantly. More complex and more widely available counters - Anti-sub commander skills added - Underwater stamina - HE effective enough in shallow water to stop exploiting dive/rise mechanics - spotting was adjusted iirc Now, homing torpedoes and ping are devastating if the opposition allows them to hit, but that element can be both taken away or mitigated with balancing or revamping that mechanic completely. If they get consistent, constructive feedback they have little reason not to make those adjustments. There is ongoing development so there is still space to make changes. Whether WG will do so is a rather irrelevant question, because if you don’t promote your alternatives clearly and constructively, then things will certainly not be done in a more acceptable way.

The WR in either "league" does not have the same value. Unicums fighting just unicums would end up with a 50% average over their combined matches, just as noobs vs noobs would end with a 50% average over their combined matches. Someone has to lose and win, so what you're going to do is skew and muddle their statistics. Furthermore, you're going to create longer queues and extra population issues by further segmenting the already dwindling and spread out pop further. It would be self-destructive to do this. This is further worsened by the amount of matches someone has played. I can win one match and have a 100% WR, or 20 out of 30 and have a 66% WR. In time this could still go to 50 over 100 and have a 50% WR. But what if I don't continue playing to get to the 50/100? Should people start wondering if they should keep playing if they have a current good enough WR for promotion but if they continue they might shoot themselves in the foot? Sorry, but this isn't a football league where everyone plays the same amount of matches against the same amount of people under the same time and match constraints. You can't compare stats that easily and when you're going to create selective ranking, where do you put the barriers? And what if there's more people playing? How large will you make the leagues? It's way more complex than you're suggesting.

You can’t both separate them and have a winrate based MM… You can at most apply recent WR from randoms to determine ranked leagues.

It probably also matters WHERE these reds start. Are they on the same side? Chance of flank failure increases. Are they opposite to other reds? If a flank of reds fails due to an enemy red side, how does this affect things? Etc.

Compared to Dockyard missions, it is, but even compared to other T9s, you don't have to go through hoops to get those at those prices plus you can use a discount coupon on those others. So yes, it's a big price tag for something you had to work for (even if the missions are relatively easy). I never said you said you offered it at a discount, I said you didn't and as others pointed out, you didn't give the coupon discount offer that you can have on other doubloon ships as it's not in the regular shop from what I gather. Consider though that it was once a "free" grindable ship. Any €-cost is going to be felt as it will be compared to 750K free exp. If it was missions and then you can get it for free exp, that'd been received completely different. Is that what people are after though? Do people want to be forced to get this container through a chained purchase scheme, rather than have a choice to save up for something bigger? Especially since a low tier ship means you'll take it out 2 to 6 times before the waiting time annoys you too much and it's just not worth it. Yeah, but then again a lot of people tend not to sell their ships and I think I personally got around 20 port slots open or so, many of which grinded for free out of monthly wins or bought during discount periods. Populated yes, but if by population you mean 1 match with 3 other players after a 4 - 5 minutes wait, then it doesn't compare even remotely to a 20s - 30s wait at tier 7-10 with 23 other players.

As a TransFormers semi-pro comic artist and toy collector, I'm obviously interested in anything TF, but just a question: Is the voice-acting going to be as bad as the previous one? (Also: Frenzy is Red, Rumble is Blue. FIRRIB (cartoon), not RIBFIR (comics)!) I mean, if you're going to do Soundwave, it better sound good, because that voice is iconically superior. But if you're going to pick some TFs, why not pick some camo's that look like ship TransFormers? Like Broadside (CV), Tidal Wave (BB / CV / whatever the hell the rest of his limbs form), Grandus (CV), Flattop (CV), Seaspray (hovercraft -> DD?), Sixknight (BB/CL/CA), Sixshot (BB/CL/CA), Depthcharge (DD), Seawatch (DD), Heatwave, Splashdown, Thunderblast (CL/CA), Waver (DD), Sonar (DD), Sharkticon (sub), Bazai-Tron (CL/CA), etc. Or some of the sea animal TFs like the Seacons (which form King Poseidon)? Would make more sense to me. And I'd definitely get Grandus with a Spinner on top. I mean look at the big lug!

@YabbaCoe Having to jump through hoops to get the right to a basic purchase, is making people feel like they're trained animals. Look, if you tell people "for your efforts, you get a significant discount and an extra ship or two", fair enough. I mean, with dockyard there's a nifty graphic and a number of "don't really care about these, but it's nice" extra rewards (dockyard missions), okay. Here too there are some minor extra's you get, but in the end you get this huge price tag - with an extra treshold task of having to make contact with customer support (everyone loves contacting customer support, right?) and you don't get a discount for something you used to be able to get without paying and on top of that, it's a worse version of it too. Meanwhile you "offer" a potential discount through gambling at pretty hefty prices per gamble, where your chance of returns will likely be worse than purchasing stuff directly from the shop and which in fact could turn out to be way more expensive in the long run, while basically hoping that once people are invested, they overspend to make what they invested in at least be a bit more than a couple flags. I mean flags are worth exactly 0 since you get those for free all over the place. Nobody wants to pay for them in the shop and really, nobody should, because these things give benefits and thus that'd be pay to win. And even the things you offer for these tokens, what with the chain of missions, you can't save up to what you want without buying stuff you really don't want. I mean, I got plenty of T2/T3 port queens (and I even bought some of the €0.80 discounts), but it feels like a complete con, because there's nobody to play with on those ships. You NEVER do a ranked battle or month of missions at those lowest tiers, which many people would honestly enjoy and give a reason to take their port queens out. I mean it's easy to come up with things to improve the quality of life for players. So though I'd love to take these ships out, hell I'd even consider buying a Mikasa, if there was just a good reason to do so, there just isn't a reason and the experience of long queues to fight bots is crap. There's no PvP content at those tiers anymore and certainly nothing worth your time when you force us to grind tier 5 and up all the time if we want to get our freebees, so why would I get it? Why doesn't your monetization team address these issues and make instead of finding ways to screw the community over at higher tiers as well? What these setups scream at your customers is "you're our dumb fat cashcows and we're just 'monetizing' the game by making previously free stuff much more expensive to get", while using time limitation incentives to pressure people to not think about if it's worth it too long. Note that when your monetization team comes up with stuff like this, we read: "We're squeezing every cent out of you for extremely basic run of the mill DLCs and while at it dance for us peasants".

(1) I agree with the part where they'll eventually get into randoms, mostly because they said they would. However, I'm not sure we'll see them before at least another test iteration with some further adjustments. But the thread has nothing to do with that. It just means it keeps all the most important sub related feedback easily traceable what with all the threads on them and provides a bit of a historic record to everyone. (2) It's a completely new class, you'd expect there to be no thread on it and a cover up? :s It's literally a thread on feedback that is being stickied and you say there's nobody caring... What exactly do you expect? One day of subs, OH NO REMOVE THEM I DON'T KNOW HOW TO TIME REPAIR feedback and they'd pull it? Or fix everything meh in the first hot fix a day later? :/ Sorry, but people are being unrealistic.

T3 has a waiting time of five mins. in the evening. Anything over 30s is a potential pop problem imo. All the modes and tiers risk overspreading (and understaffing specific modes and tiers).

This is absolute nonsense from people who seek conspiracies for that which can be explained with incompetence and basic human error. And trust me on how many devs make "common sense" errors that are subsequently interpreted by an overthinking crowd of being intentional errors "because who would mess up this badly?". Plenty sadly and for various reasons. But allow me to try and explain why it would never be in WGs interest to drive players away. Even non-milkable players provide content for other players: in a PvP game players ARE basically the content to fight, so that reserve must not dry up, that's why it's F2P. You can see what happens in lower tiers when the "player resource" does dry up. It creates a ghost town experience (not helped by further incentives to play only higher tiers like mission rewards). You say seal clubbers are the main reason new people run away. I'd say it is the amount of bots up to tier 5-6 now in the evening giving off the impression the game has passed its expiration date and loses players (!). If anything it's the uphill grind where if you reach T7-8 you hardly fight down, virtually always up, making a long grind even more daunting for lesser experienced. It is always good to bring in new players in a F2P game as new players have more potential things to spend on, certainly, but why would new players be "different" from old players? Besides, old players are heavily invested in the game through their account and are potentially more willing to spend if they love the game than new players testing out the waters. Besides, as if you could lure newer players with subs, as if they wouldn't also en mass go for BBs... At most you'd get a small portion of sub only players added, but you honestly think that would allow WG's wallet to get away with pissing off everyone else? It's in their interest to get this right, question is if they can and another question is if they can explain their concept to a playerbase that's been told "it can't be done" and told itself "it can't be done" and is now looking not to see how it can be implemented, but how it can be undermined to be "right" over an obsolete view of an earlier design iteration. You suggest as if there's a can of players, humans, completely detached from the rest of us players that can be opened at times. The main thing you need to get new players is raising awareness with populations that are unaware of your product and suggesting a quality time. They're not going to be convinced by submarines alone as they too will play the other classes, probably more. So when old players walk away from your product or even aren't anywhere to be seen in the early rounds of your gaming experience, the state of the game will be questioned by new players quite quickly. In fact, new players will often look at the population retention rate (or at least how populated a game is) to determine whether an 'old' game (which WoWs is by now even if we'll never reach v1.0) isn't obsolete. "Modernity" / "Trendy", being up to date, is important to a lot of people even if this says nothing about quality. So in that sense, bringing something new and shiny to a game is a way to say "look, we're still innovating". But if it's a bad addition, it'll not retain these new players for long. The main problem is that devs need the right analysis to work with and as has been said before, their spreadsheet reliance is probably an issue.

The pink damage dealing was a bad design anyway, since it made it even easier for your opponents to win as more of your team got damaged, while it did little to punish the offender as they didn't care anyway. It also often meant that intention and carelessness wasn't caught properly, what with situational unaware people (even when warned ahead of time) swerving into the paths of your torps (which could be launched well clear of the target). The penalty did nothing for better play, it just double, if not triple punished the well intended players.

I think it's more to do that it caused a lot of toxicity and because it's easier to ruin a game for some childish person with malevolent intentions with teamkilling than it is for someone (and their team) with good manners and self-restraint to counter it. That and the speculated return of the Kitakami and its 40x 15km 141s (-10% = 127s) torpedo spam.

This doesn't indicate much about submarine like or dislike though as it is conflated with all other reasons one has for playing. The problem here is that ranked is a game mode that provides certain benefits and competitivity to players, therefore those will likely be the main incentives to play ranked. Even if people play WITH submarines, there are more than one reason to do so. Some will do it for testing purposes, some for training, some for "I have to in order to compete", some for fun, some for opponent SWOT analysis (know your enemy). Without an in-depth survey you can't speculate on the why for this sort of data. Yet some people may have different reasons to continue using certain ships: it may be one of their only options, it may be their current grind, it may be they're unable to make a proper risk dependent choice to adapt through unit selection and try to derp their way through as usual. You could get more out of comparing at what point people stop trying to rank up. If people are on average quicker to quit, then they're not enjoying the mode as much as they used to. But even that is skewed data. That's speculative projection. That could be a necessity or a pragmatic, more efficient way to play Ranked this season. I think rather than manipulating data, it's setting yourself up for failure through self-delusion. Ask people to fill in questionaires. Give people in-game the obligation to answer two or three main questions after a week playing and the option to answer many more detailed questions (multiple choice and some open) and you'll get a lot better feedback.

You mean that thread that came out of beta and saw the complete CV rework and other changes?

Was wondering how many un-sub-tle sub-terfuge sub-missions there’d be.

Q: What can you damage when you attack an u-boat? A: Sub-components

Q: What do you call it when an u-boat reduces the enemy number by 1 or more? A: Sub-traction

Blast radius edge or right on top.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28852/retired-u-s-navy-submariners-detail-why-fire-is-so-deadly-aboard-a-submarine Fires on board subs are deadly. :/ Depth charges can shake things and equipment loose by the blast wave, including electrical wiring, batteries could spark and oil/diesel leaks or other fumes could catch fire.

Personally I think dive time should run out significantly quicker so surface ships without ASW are a bigger threat. But subs are pretty fragile as is. That is largely timing related, like with fires and floodings, bad BB players often use repair immediately, waaaaay too soon. The same happens with pings. I have noticed a lot of BBs immediately panic press the repair button. That only grants them about 26s of “pingless” time, while the sub reloads torps (25s for two, then another 25 for two more) and thus likely pings again before the torps got near enough to miss or for the next volley. If the sub is smart, only one set was fired and another with some delay, so there is time to re-acquire the target with pings. It should be easy to dodge if you unping right before or when the torps come into sight. Do not steer right into them like with normal torps, for they are likely too close together. but to their side and turn into them when they are nearly next to you to get your rear out of harms way. But if a BB does unping early they will have no means of undoing a new ping. In that case the next ping will be devastating potentially. A lot of BB players position poorly to deal with subs, too far away from cover, too far away from the fight and thus DD and cruiser assistance. Subs can punish bad positioning quite well. And yes, if you stay in the open when you know there are subs near, you do things wrong. You must force it into bad positions in shallow water to chase you or force it to be somewhere you expect it to be to get sight of you again. But consider that to most these BB players you see get devastated, that most never figured out how homing torps work. They know they deal damage, but since WG doesn’t do tutorial videos you have to watch before playing, don’t know what to do and they’ll panic press upon the first ping.

I sacrifice myself constantly for the good of the team effort and it is pretty rewarding…

What captain skills do you use? Might want to take this opportunity to reset if needed, since survivability is a must when out tiered in T8.

Two reasons I found are: * early awareness, the ping informs you of approximate original direction and origin, torps may not even be launched yet. That means you can start taking countermeasures like turning and finding island cover, or even tracking down the sub (with aid of allies if available by informing them) even before you detected the torpedoes. * homing torps steer to where you are, not where you are going to be, so when they lose track they head for where you were or if they were turning to get to where you were, will run even further behind you. Or to your side if you approach in a diagonal angle, allowing you to drift/steer around them more easily. So keep this in mind with regards to when you “unping” yourself. The new course of the torpedoes may actually be well out of your projected path, because it will pass further behind you going for a ghost of you or nothing at all if they needed to steer to even get to you in the first place. The moment of breaking the lock and your speed and path and the path of the torpedo at that moment in time determine largely if the torpedoes will be headed for you. This also depends on the section pinged. In some cases it actively looks up terrain cover even with more of your ship exposed and with the original path well clear of it. So unless you sail right at the torps hoping to go in between as with regular torps, or you can’t break the lock, you will have a good chance to dodge. Unguided torpedoes will always go to where you extrapolated your target to be and they get no warning whatsoever. Note also that a close proximity attempt even with lock may overshoot its target when not aimed manually as the homing in takes time at a low turn rate.

Was that marketing or people conflated with marketing? Nobody is saying it wasn’t pushed, but was it the marketing people or others? A commercial / sales department sounds like a more logical culprit there. Marketing is often purely a promotional department (renders, folders, website). Our sales department is also very good at selling stuff we don’t have (yet) or variations on what we developed, rather than what we developed.