Karasu_Browarszky

It's like finally getting your hands on Nok Drayen's vast treasure and then heading out to see if there's something nice on GTN you might like.

My reaction is to try and make sure I'm not the ship closest to the sub.

So... it might be a good idea to get rid of the ships you never play? Especially the cheaper ones, not necessarily tier X's maybe.

It's a cool port. I wish I had a similar room setup for myself IRL.

I'm trying to work out a strategy to minimize frustration (and spending, too, of course) by limiting my high tier gaming to just the ships that I really want to play. Grinding tier X's runs counter to this strategy, and is a major source of frustration for me. This is also why I don't like to do resets for research points, either. Fortunately, I just finally got rid of Riga so that's one painful grind less. What I will do instead is focus more on the operations and low/mid tier gaming with a moderate amount of high tier battles on selected ships only. I will probably still see subs (and even more CV's), but what I hope to be at reduced levels of frustration. Fun pops up in about 1 engagement out of 10. Not perfect, but with 'controlled spending behavior' is probably the best approach for me short of quitting which I'm currently not (yet) prepared to do.

4 key presses is correct, yes. I suggest you test this and pay attention on how you press the keys to see what exactly happens. Most times, I think, we just slam the keys during game play so it's hard to tell what happens unless you specifically count the key presses and see what happens. I haven't tried what happens if you keep the key pressed, it shouldn't count as a key press, though, because Q/E is a toggle key unlike the A/D keys.

At least when no other keys are pressed at the same time, on my BB pressing Q/E once gives you 1/2 rudder toggle, twice Full rudder toggle. Reversing the rudder takes the corresponding number of key presses to the opposite direction.

If you reply in a thread that has to do with the subs (removing them etc.) in WoWS, if you want to stay on topic then what I said constitutes a fact in terms of what is relevant for this discussion. The subs are a playable class in WoWS. They've been implemented in a way that compromises gameplay because the game mechanics that exist do not provide for a meaningful interaction in the game modes we have between the subs and the other classes. The specific issues have to do with the skill floor/ceiling of the subs and the countermeasures available to the players fighting the subs and how they are balanced. The playerbase reaction is divided, but seems to indicate that the balance is currently out of whack. It further suggests that WG is well aware of these issues, but for reasons of their own choose to ignore them and fail to implement the necessary corrections in terms 'sub rework' or something. I can't see myself explaining it in any simpler words. Except by summing it up by using the expression 'subs suck', but that in itself while being factually correct represents an oversimplification of the issue. Your thinking seems unnecessarily convoluted to me, I'm afraid to say. As in what you are saying represents an overcomplication of the issue. Whether WG is making economically bad decisions or not will show up in their revenue reports. Over the long term, that is. The problem here is that by the time the economic data may indicate a marked downward trend the damage is already done and the situation unrecoverable. This is the reason why they should listen to the community feedback, specifically by those players who know the game mechanics and what the gameplay really is like.

Haven't noticed this, but I'll try to test this when I get in the game to see how it works in my case. Apart from that, I frequently run into the issue of keys not responding. I don't think this is a keyboard issue, because the keys work when typing. So it has to do with the way the buffering/multiple key pushes in the game.

Thankfully, so is 3% to 30% because the difference is down to a zero which has no value.

^^ What I posted there is not so much an opinion as it is a fact. What I stated above determines the outcomes we see daily in the battles (and the fallout here on the forum). I'm quite sure the economic side of things is what's behind the decisions WG makes when it comes not just to game marketing but also on game development. That's what is somewhat puzzling, it's like a large chunk of the playerbase is responding favorably to the changes they make and seem content with the game going down the crapper. If that really is the case, our 'investment' of real money, time and effort will be safe for many years to come because that's the current direction that shows up on the 'roadmap'. Correct, we cannot directly influence their decision, especially if they choose to ignore the feedback. We do, however, have the option of reacting to them, both in terms of gameplay, spending, and overall, if we choose to play this game at all. But the above is not really what I was saying. I was talking more in terms of gameplay only. Eh... no. I'm fresh out of petty cash, sorry. All arguments are valid to whoever is making them. Whether they are valid in terms of the issues themselves, is another matter. Only the arguments that take us in the direction of finding the solutions are inherently valid.

For this discussion, the relevant details involve WoWS gameplay and the implementation of the subs as part of it in terms of the game mechanics and the playerbase reaction to it.

I don't see posting any reply or other reaction to his posts. If you did reply adequately, then your reply came come to Nothing. What he said is directly relevant to any discussions about the subs in the game.

That's a rhetorical device used for like teaching something. Then again, if there is only one person on the forum... @Fastmotion read what @COPlUM posted on page 35 and think about that.

It's a good discount, though, but I have premium time on EU still, and I don't like having it concurrently on two servers because I barely play enough to make any use of it even on one server.

Actually.... oh.. NVM

TBH, this is ASIA server stuff.

That might be something concrete to discuss about, yes.

Well.. we know there is an easy solution to this and it's balancing by top performance. That would make many of the ships unplayable by the less skilled players, though, so there'd be another kind of a riot at the gates as a result. The other solution is to limit the capabilities of the ships, but that would make them boring for the skilled players to play. Then again, having both ships that have low and high potential in the game, would make those players who can only play the less performing ships feeling frustrated... I can't actually pretend to have any sort of a solution ready....

Sorry, can't see it any more, didn't make a note of it. What I can say is that the enemy sub seemed somewhat ineffective. Or bloody useless, probably, from their point of view. This is part of the problem, depending on the player skill, the subs can either be totally useless or a massive asset for their team. Going into battle, you never know which, nor do you know which team has the effective one, or are they both useless. I suppose that is good if you like variety... but I kind of like to get my variety in a different form of gameplay than what the subs have to offer. IMO, they can never be made to work in some meaningful way in the randoms. In a way, I kind of wish they could work, because so many players want to have them, and the randoms don't offer particularly good gameplay to begin with and are rather a poor representation of what a naval wargame should be. The problem is, how do you balance them.

Uhm... yes. I perceive there is a problem because I prefer the cyclical concept more rather than the dualistic with a beginning and an end. I don't like paths that go from A to B, any more than I like books or movies having endings. In a sense, the journey is more fun than the destination, and if that is so, really, what is the point of completing your journey. I think translations and books are important beyond the beginner levels, actually. This question is tricky, because texts are bound to the context of the time when they were created. They must always be seen within the proper context, and not interpreted outside of it. There's the problem, few if anyone could accurately interpret something like two and a half thousand year old texts, because they didn't live at that time. The best they can do is an educated guess, literally. There is some real dualism here, because the perceived reality has at least two levels, the metaphysical one which we cannot gauge or directly observe, and the physical one which in a constant state of flux. A text should be something that bridges the gap between those concurrent levels of our construct of reality. Same as this forum is supposed to act as a bridge for the differing currents that make up this community...

I think the meaning is pretty close to 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.'