Figment

Different people could be responsible for making final calls. At my job I make a lot of design decisions that are rubber stamped unless someone else feels a strong need to have a say over it (my boss, or the CEO). In various stages of the design someone else might have the authority to make calls autonomously. The business case is decided on by my boss, CEO and product manager, who then assign the job of designing it to me. During the R&D phase I as product developer make calls mostly independently, but get corrected now and then by my manager or in response to engineering, production or assembly. Those people can have a sort of “can’t be done” veto powers and may make suggestions for alternatives, but I, the product manager and boss may call how to change it. Then it is passed on to engineering and a product engineer gets to make calls for what to change and how, though if it impacts aesthetics the product manager and other managers may have a final say in it. Most the time changes are rubber stamped however. Too much micro management otherwise. Same for marketing, our marketing department does no market research, just takes care of website, folders, convention stand design and promotional stuff. Oh and stupid xmas packs which they (full women staff in mostly male company) have a full autonomy over… Which possibly explains why we got a giant reindeer dual-foot slipper two years ago, along with all the kitchen equipment… So if they have significant autonomy in that monetization group and little feeling with or for the community’s needs (probably are quite detached), it is not impossible that they decided what to do. Who was aware when of critique on such a call by players and whether they could intervene rather than rubberstamp is a second thing and I think Sub_Octavian is trying to say he and/or others should have intervened there based on community/CC feedback. But failed to do so. He should realize he/WG owes a sincere apology for the handling of the fall-out too and that perhaps they should look into whether this monetization group is such a good idea and he may not have the authority to intervene, just advise even, but a mea culpa is to me at least a start.

Seems pretty legit though. He did say: Which to most people sounds like sales/marketing department, but might indeed be part of a financial group under sales. If their only goal is "monetize the game" and Lesta doesn't care, or stimulates it then it could be most people, including Lesta wern't quite aware of the design or just didn't feel it was a big deal. But admitting he made a mistake is at least something starting of an apology.

The case for a separate mode aside, he's got a point that the game is extremely arcadeish. What with hitpoints, modules, target indicators, ballistics balancing, tiering, radar, hydro, CVs, battleship turn radii, size scaling vs map size distances, torp spreads vs single torp launch, smokescreens, which units get what abilities... Speed is one thing where WG has been very keen to apply non-realistic values to ships just to make them worth playing. It's quite a bit different from how say War Thunder approaches game design with various aiming aids and camera constraints depending on the difficulty level you play (arcade -> pseudo-simulator -> simulator). WG is pretty clear the game is made for casual players and competitive players alike, but it means they're mostly designing for the lower common denominator. It's not even like you get tuning options in terms of side-grades of equal value but different pros and cons, you only get basic upgrades in this game to feel like you're progressing by deliberately underpowering you compared to peers when you first get a ship. They pretty much literally said they wanted you to suffer till you upgraded so you'd feel liberated. But at least there are not as many copy/paste random upgrades as in War Thunder and WoT. By which I mean they're not many, rather than not copy/paste.

I don't think there have been many PvP naval games. Subs are probably the hardest to code and create mechanics for, so they'll likely always be an afterthought. That's probably a bigger problem that results in the shoehorning in. I would guesstimate they'd not be the biggest contributor to such games dieing, typically people move on to newer games (even if in, or perhaps because they're in entirely different game categories for the sake of keeping things fresh) after a few years. Since subs and all get added later on in games, it's not per definition a given that they'd be the main reason of decline. But at least they didn't put in Soviet Missile Subs (fired cruise missiles at anything landbased or ships by force fire on gridsquares - officially it could not target ships for "balance") and Soviet Advanced Tactical Submarine (fired tactical nukes in torpedoes) from Command & Conquer. But then we havn't seen the final Russian line up yet.

I had mission stuff to grind along with some new ships that didn't match ranked, so didn't really play ranked till later this week when I went and grinded the Gnevny in particular. Think I only lost 8-10 matches, with at least 6 of those losses in a sub and the remainder in Fushun (can't recall correctly, but subs are a way harder class to get sufficient damage on to impact a match than the anti-sub crowd made it appear on the basis of coop matches). Fushun sucked too with too few targets for deep water torps.

There's always nuances, but I'm trying things out as well at the moment with DDs and other ships. I always enjoy experimenting and try to do things differently as much as possible. Note: this is not necessarily good for your short term WR, but should be over time. :3 True, but often subs have to overextend in order to get in good positions. I've also found they can often be ignored for most of the game and forced into overextension positions by playing at their allies and make optimal use of cover, forcing subs to go around corners (often making them more predictable on both the approach vector and as a bonus, if you get them near a coastline, corner, shallow or partially trapped, reducing their options of escape (even diving wise) and worsening their aim for you). Of course, it would be nice if we knew more about the underwater topology of the maps, would make getting stuck and knowing how to get unstuck easier too as surface ships. Hell, I've been stuck on the surface level well clear from the coastline with a sub once so far...

1. basic principles, getting familiar with the movements and mechanics (ping timing and aim). The up/down mechanism in particular (I'm still often by accident pressing E instead of F and start turning instead of surfacing). Also some basic underwater combat skills can be learned here (ping, depth perception, how and when to use hydrophone). 2. I suspect it's because they want people to spread out a bit and not have all those subs at once and overflow the MM with subs. Meanwhile give a bit of rewards to those in wait. Possibly also accustom people to random drops. 3. Fewer threats due to smaller scope of match. Smaller maps too. 4. This is why I use them for 10-8 or 5-3. It won't impact my ranking much if it does (and it does, negatively as I'm still learning and getting surprised by CVs extreme immunity for pings and all). You probably should test them. Not just to play subs, but to know what you'll be up against, how they'll play and by analysing what your opposition does, what you can do to avoid a terrible death at the hands of subs (or what you can do to die a terrible death at the hands of subs).

There's more to it with b, it's DD dependent due to depth charge pattern and number, but there's also a different way to be completely safe from a sub, while it's pointing in the same direction as you are: If you sail NEXT to your target, it will have a hard time getting torps on you, because the rotation speed is low. In Gnevny for instance I needed multiple depth charge runs, three at most so far and it has only one charge to use which drops straight behind. If you do a 90° charge on a sub with a Gnevny, its pattern is largely unsuitable and only a few will be full hits. If you run parallel or cross diagonally, you're more likely to do large amounts of damage as more bombs will connect. it also makes it easier to just drift over the sub when you need to and keep them in sight. Remember though that you do not need to be directly over the sub. Even at some distance next to a sub the depth charges will do damage by pressure wave. So if you sit next to it, sailing parallel you're completely immune to any form of attack and it is completely vulnerable and likely even doesn't know exactly where you are, because of the camera design of a submerged sub. When playing sub, I've pinged DDs in fog a few times for great effect and also used butt and front torps to devastate DDs making a run at me, but at times they're impossible to torp as well. When a DD is making an off-center run at you, they're very hard to both escape from and target. C I disagree with. You need to estimate speed and direction (which is pretty easy tbh) and be good at extrapolation. Also keep in mind your depth charge pattern. Some DDs for instance throw some charges straight behind and some to the side. Which don't always require you to be directly over them. Some DDs toss the DCs in front as well. I'm not sure if there's a timing difference, but I have absolutely no issue whatsoever landing significant hits on undetected subs based on educated guestimates.

Also. What do you call it when a submarine quickly rises to the surface to ram a ship? A Depth-Charge.

Also. What do you call a U-boat that lost all HP in the Arctic? Sub-Zero.

Either way, I just found the most proper application of this camo:

I find my best torp results on subs came from launching torps and not pinging till they got near enough the target to track but not dodge, so the target didn't steer away. If they started steering from far away after getting pinged, most the time the homing torps wouldn't find their target. Steering at the torps is likely hits, but as long as you're not double pinged the hits are relatively low damage. Can't really control that double ping much as the oen being attacked as long as you have no repair ready. I've also had it where torps would steer to a completely orthogonal angle compared to where the target was, seemingly chasing another ping than mine?

So last couple days been doing some low WR fixing for some of my ships, including the Rhein (was 25%, now 50%), Tatra (was 33%, now 50%), Tenryu (was 46% now 53%). Then I went to give Ranked another go to finish up, after earlier this week getting Bronze 10-3 in two evenings. So about subs being OP... I only got hit in the Andrea Doria for about 40% damage by sub torps, dodged the rest of the torps, even while pinged. I regret nothing! Onwards to qual. Eeeeh. Killed a couple subs. And onwards it is to silver. Top 3 all but once in Benson. Seriously if you're having issues with them... Maybe it's because you've stayed too far away in too open water? I mean, I don't have any anti-sub countermeasures on the Andrea Doria and personally didn't deal damage to them, but I still forced a sub to forget about our sub till it was too late, while making another lose some diving time, where it had to pop up shortly after and got utterly splattered. That move got me killed by a Kaiser in my side, but I could deal some SAP damage to that while there so that's fine. Tanking front line and scouting DDs, cruisers and subs in a BB, pulling fire away from our DDs made it a lot easier for the DDs and our sub to hunt them down and deter them from entering circles. These matches shouldn't be played overly cautiously, but very aggressively making good use of island cover to become a hard to ping target with limited enemies with angles on you. Don't stay in open water if there's a sub near. But islands are their bane. They can't fire over them at all, no matter how shallow, unlike the rest of us and they rotate very slow with limited frontal angles, so they have a hard time chasing you in circles or around islands. Plus most of them just arn't that good. But yeah, there was someone who said he needed 70 matches to qualify... Really? :x

Shouldn’t be the issue here. It is moving towards the island, he probably steers in between flying aircraft.

Nope. Profile looks legit. Just bad player who doesn't understand the game and blames everything but himself... If you use the map (press M while flying), you can make it navigate by setting a course. You sir, just press W W W W at the start of the match and then fly aircraft, without setting a new course for your ship. You never realised this, because you never bothered to investigate the controls for aircraft carriers. Probably you make yourself a huge, easy target at the front of the pack, everyone concentrates fire on you and you should realise that some ships can even get citadel damage on you with high explosive shells... Ever considered you're the problem and expect your opponents to be as dumb as bots while they're not? I think you should really think things through a bit more. The only part here that is true is that they want you to buy a lot of items, which logically means they want you to keep playing and have a good time, since then you'll buy... more... Instead of... stop buying... People that stay away have other good reasons, but modders aren't the problem. But you don't know how to control an aircraft carrier while in aircraft, you don't know that the base concealment range of an aircraft carrier like the Kaga is 12.6km, which even with a 10% reduction means over 10km and you've got a DD at 7.6km (hint: it and everyone else can see you) and you don't know that it's a bad idea to just go full speed with a carrier if you don't know where you want to take it... You sir, need to humble yourself and accept that you're a lousy player who needs help from others since you're clearly incapable and unwilling to look up simple information yourself. Buying a ship doesn't mean you get to win instantly. That ship is only as good as its captain and in this case, it's ehr... in a subpar state.

Think I'm slowly getting the hang of this ship. Sadly needed 2s more for aiming a broadside on the Colombo at 8km before it got me while reloading from the Yamato (5 citadels on it after which it had 57hp left, which my secondaries took care off :D). Got the 190K and 2200 base xp in one match missions done at once. :) Nice timing for free premium time. .

And that considering the Netherlands is always one of the leading new gimmick adopting nations. I'll get beaten up by my wife for saying this, but in Belgium you're still likely to randomly encounter tech from 20-30 years ago. Like at the Brugge's railway station which up to at least 6 years ago still worked with what seemed like 486s and matrix printers...

Granted if you only fire torps while sailing in a straight line you'd not encounter it. :)

Unfortunately, people in my environment (including myself) got real lives outside of World of Pixels. D:

@YabbaCoe Anything you can tell us about what went wrong to cause the torpedo aiming bug, without having to get into too much detail? I'm mostly surprised such old code got corrupted by a patch by accident when it shouldn't even be touched given the patch content. Human error to do with extracting code for the creation of the code for the submarine torpedoes per chance?

That's quite possible unfortunately if the person in question feels he has little oversight and certain powers at his command. Seen similar power abuse by a certain GM in another game (starting a hated event and told everyone on all factions that the faction leaders who had been the loudest against it asked him to start that specific event at that time and place, those players subsequently got abusive tells from hundreds of players). Unfortunately he could easily get away with it as their customer service was always siding with GMs, no matter what.

Far too newfangled. This was the phone that hang at my grandma's place.

Loved that game. :) Oh LucasArts. Grant us more point and click adventures. :(

Btw, what you called the second is actually the third iteration. If you put the various map incarnations under one another, you can clearly see the evolution of the map design (images taken from an old poll on which map was best on the US forums, and yes the oldest map won with 76% of respondents voting for it): V1 V2 V3 V4 [/ Though that's not considering all starting positions (ranked vs randoms) and cap zones locations they've cycled through of course. I find it noticable that the edges of the maps have become free from clutter more often (for performance boost or just too lazy/costly to add out of map art?). Furthermore, the lines between enemy teams have been more pre-defined and like a spaghetti in some Disney dog movie, are designed to lead towards one another. Basically a lot of the routes have been straightened out with little incentive to weave through and create an element of surprise, as weaving would create broadside strikes more easily from various crossfire positions. It was definitely easier to control who could fire at you on the early maps as long as you didn't go for the middle area. There may still be a slight bend for some basic cover, but it reduces the options and incentizes camping over staying on the move. It seems designed to increase crossfire angles and reduce quick escapes to cover, which basically stifles initiative. More cover would make secondary builts for BBs a lot more interesting too. It's clearly all been simplified, too much IMO.

Deployment also changed a lot to ensure people would see each other. Those two groups could move in opposing directions and not see one another for a longer period as well. Along with the CV design and win rules then made draws more likely too as you could play for staying alive easier. Think my draw rate was about 4% and since my logistics decisionmakings were of a higher order than most enemies had a 61% WR. You can tell the newer maps have been compacted as well to ensure more action, but that's reduced the importance of taking the right routes to get to cap zones in time and keep your DPS where it should be. A lot of worse players sometimes simply had no DPS to speak off as they had no targets to fire at. Given my aggressive high risky stealth preference ways I could often catch people off guard or alone in ambush situations, where today such moves are not only radared, CVs keep you spotted longer as it's not just the one attack wave, you also get piled on far more easily as the maps are more open and more enemies nearer to one another. They've pretty much all had the pro-BB treatment post-beta: smaller maps, more open space. Some of these maps had a lot of opportunities for short range ambushes and thus favoured agile units like 4 and 5.5km torpedo cruisers and DDs. Their main modus of operandi in many of these maps has become long range or island camping as a consequence, where before they could use stealth to move up and ambush in narrow canyons. That has made their citadels also more vulnerable, IMO, because if you have to fight in the open, chances are you'll be exposed, whereas if you have a hydro/torp combi you can corner camp/ambush for more reliable hard hitting torp strikes. One consequence of the more open maps has also been that CV torpedo bombers and rocket aircraft got more freedom to make attack passes at broadside vectors pretty much anywhere. Of course, some of these maps had CVs stationed in impossible launch positions due to how high the islands were. Though not for Wargaming pilots who can pull 50G forces to go over steep terrain with WWI-WWII era aircraft.