Karasu_Browarszky

WG feels they are obliged to discourage us from playing operations. This way they get to state that the operations are too unpopular. Screw WG though, you like the operations, you play the operations and enjoy! Operations provide interesting variety, and are still somewhat good for grinding tier 6 ships. Currently I myself am focused on missions in the randoms and coops, but I still occasional like to play those operations I'm more fond of.

Curious, given that analysis, what are your feelings about the subs (in randoms)?

Weren't you saying they had no place in Operations earlier? IMO if we get the subs, and if they come to just one game mode then let it be operations not randoms. Getting them only in the randoms would be stupid, and getting them in both would be possible, but I expect problems. Lamentable. But I do actually reserve the choice of whether to trust WG's statements for myself.... As I been saying, there is nothing unclear in my position that I don't want them in the randoms. What is the problem here, that you don't like my opinion on this matter? It is usually a bad idea to reply to a sarcastic comment but what the hell... Ee... Supermario AFAIK is arcade in the extreme. I played Bruce Lee, and the Worms, and even Avoid the Noid.... I never played Supermario. The complexity of this type of games rises from the level of required eye-hand coordination within the 0.3 second human reaction time. Yes, it can get complex. With mounting sensory input and increased response requirements, those sort of games can become challenging. Similarly, the multitasking required in WoWS along with the level of eye-hand coordination and in-game physics does create complexity. You can get away with ignoring that complexity, to a point, unlike with Supermario. In this way WoWS punishes for mistakes in a less linear way, but you still get punished for making mistakes. Unless you are actually a dev, you lack the authority to categorically rule things out or in. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts. You have failed to provide arguments pointing out why it supposedly, in your opinion, is 'rubbish not to have the subs in the randoms. You cannot set anything straight without a point of leverage. Apology accepted. WG's track record on major game meta changes is what makes it a very bleak prospect. Based on that, I can infer that it is yet another disaster in the making. I have no bias against subs, I've played several submarine themed games. Based on my experience, I would be interested in playing the subs in an operation such as a convoy operation, at this point without any major reservations. Randoms are different. I have invested not just money, but also considerable time to playing this game, and my chief concern is that I do not want to see something potentially dangerous to game health taking place, and in my judgement, introducing subs in the randoms has a potential for doing just that. From a personal point of view, talking solely about my subjective performance in the game, I foresaw problems which will, shall we say, reduce my combat effectiveness. In other words, having subs in the randoms would increase the gap between the better and the lesser players. I'm one of the lesser players, are you one of the better players? So why do you want so desperately to have them in the randoms? Such as? Facts? Not fascinating, but interesting... I hope one day to be able to gain enough wisdom and foresight how submerged submarines can counter the CV's influence... up in the air. Yes, that is sarcasm too. ASW is time away from other duties. This is a component that is heavily dependent on team play. This game is severely lacking in team play. Do you see a problem? You forgot to include the customary 'arcade' bit. Balance cares. Subs are a Positive Addition for those of us who Requested Subs for Years Subs are a Positive Addition for those of us who Requested Subs for Years Subs are a Positive Addition for those of us who Requested Subs for Years I said I have nothing against change for the better. I don't like having to repeat myself over and over.. Ultimately, it's not up to me or you what the outcome will be like, whether WG's meta changes will be confident and in the right direction. This is up to the wider community, and again I need to stress, I have no wish to see a change that will lead to the game folding due to player loss. I assume that given the 'boardgame' concept, subs can be included in the foray. I wouldn't do it, but I'm not the one calling the shots, I just have to live with the consequences of WG's ever disastrous decisions. Getting the subs in order to counter the CV's is a pretext and false pretense, I wonder if this has been formulated in order to make the subs more popular considering how unpopular the CV's are.

What is there to understand about the game. The game is arcade, it is very simple to play.

It's still pretty good, cause Swedish torps have very low damage, whereas a single Japanese/US torp hit can blow a Swedish DD out of the water.

The CV's would... Actually, all of this could be fitted into the framework on one naval warfare title, if such a title were to exist where the devs actually wanted to develop it into something that will define the genre...

For me it was accepted, would it get accepted if I had already used it before? All this seems a bit fishy to me...

Just about the right view OP posted.... looks perfect to me. And.. Pearl Harbor isn't? Malta is the logical option for a Mediterranean base, I think. As a side note, could we also have Port Arthur? I'm rather partial to good port.

Are you by any chance familiar with the phrase 'this is getting old fast'? 'Nobody'? You have some statistical data to back this up? You are aware that they have removed several of the better operations we used to have. The whole Ops part of the game needs a complete overhaul but what they do instead is churn out moer and more paper premiums. I think I can say my opinion in a pretty straightforward manner, and have actually done that. Will you stop putting words in my mouth. Oh, okay. So it is enough for me to know how to press W and go pew-pew, izzit? Gotcha! I have said that they can't IMO be introduced in the randoms, but they would have a good use in the Ops. I don't actually repeat myself, except you keep repeating the opposite yourself. Rather than accepting the fact that our opinions differ, you keep trying two twist my words around some fixation about subs. I don't see any double standards in my own sayings. If you see things double, go to an optician to have your specs corrected. Yes, I'm a peasant. My ancestors were peasants as well. I didn't know what you are allowed to say on the forums is somehow tied with your ancestry. As for the point itself, I'll return to this later on as this seems to me the only new thing you've brought into this argument in your past five postings or so. No, I don't like change when it makes things worse than before. The game is crap as it is now, why the hell would I not want it to change for the better. (Pretty sure you will try to twist that around as well.) I go by what smarter people had said about how the testing went, for one. Another reason is what I know about the game and how I expect it to be affected by the introduction of the subs. In short, I don't expect it to get better, I expect it to get even worse, and nothing you've managed to say has convinced me of the opposite. Neither are you. Surprised? Righto. The new bit of information was that you wanted to have the subs to counter the CV's. While I think this is feasible as a form of counterplay to the CV's (which I'm not opposed to having in the game unlike many others, only with the way they've been implemented which I find poorly done), I seriously doubt the subs could be used in such a way. The one problem with the CV's now is that there is no effective counterplay (most people would agree...), so introducing an element that can counter them seems like a smart idea on the surface, However, the game already has AA so what is the reason not using AA as a form of counterplay, as opposed to having the AA now only good for collecting ribbons and XP, I'm talking about the kind of AA that will actually reduce the combat effectiveness of the CV's to a measurable degree. I agree having subs being able to torp those CV's seems like an answer. (No, I'm not suddenly thinking or saying that I'd like to see them in the randoms.) The problem is that if the subs are intended as a counterplay to the CV's, then playing subs would mean that the MM will make it doubly sure there will be CV's in the battle. I don't see how this would be very well received by the player base, do you? Also, there would have to be counterplay to the subs, or at least so we would logically think, even though the CV's with no effective counterplay available suggest WG might not include effective counterplay to the subs either. In which case, the MM might get flooded by subs queuing for the battle. Military historians probably could point out the reasons why submarines were historically mostly not deployed in naval battle, though somehow I gather you might not think this relevant, given the magic word 'arcade', though, IMO, that is not justification for bad design. The point is, that the only way WG can think of pushing the subs into randoms is by a two way mechanism that, firstly, ignores the limits that the historical submarines were facing in terms of their combat efficiency, and secondly, adjusting the ASW techniques in the game at a level which maintains the level of balance needed to keep the game playable. Are the subs needed? If so, by whom? Are they needed for something that can't be solved otherwise? Are you confident about WG's ability to effectively re-balance the entire meta because that's what it is going to take unless you cripple the subs themselves and limit their role to anti-CV counterplay?

I have the Östergotland... please say it wasn't mine... What I have actually noticed it that high tier DD's doing mostly spotting and capping can get what seems like disproportionate share of XP. Not sure why this is, unless WG have made some changes to the XP system. On the subject of team play, a thought occurred to me about the Operations. Because the enemy is usually pretty predictable, the operations could be used for training team play tactics. This is something that the Clans might do, as we don't have actual tutorials in the game. As a BB player I would expect BB play to be very different from DD play, otherwise it would really be boring. No, I don't think 'like fights the like' is necessarily boring, some people like fast paced dynamic play. I do DD's myself, the only ships I avoid are the cruisers, so I would like the sort of meta where I could also play them with some confidence. In what I outlined this would follow when the light forces penetrate the screen, otherwise I imagine they would have gotten sunk. Perhaps my ideas are a little too complex, but it's not like we have destroyer divisions doing torpedo attacks currently either. If we did, it would hugely improve the gaming experience, but we got instead are the 'warriors of the smoke', the angry cloud, or the island hugging spam cruisers, and lately even island hugging sniper BB's... The difference is, the former requires team play coordination, the latter does not. Personally, I don't like the sort of meta which rewards camping over team play. Is anyone actually happy with the way the game is right now?

Any idea what it gives? Or did the code only get accepted but the mission itself is already obsolete or something?

Yeah, that's what you call 'dynamics'. Some mistakes are due to player, some are due to map design, some are due to missing team play. @GarrusBrutus yeah, so obviously the same should reward team play if that is the only way to get all the jackasses there to work together, just how you going to do it.

Same. Not sure if this was some Big Hunt thing.

It just worked for me! Unless it is some mission you already got, maybe you need to try typing it something. I just copied and pasted it myself. OP, cheers!

Axis... Ah...You are perhaps talking about the shaft we get from WeeGee?

You are correct in your estimate. With those limitations it is not easy and requires team support for this to work. However, if you got a ship that can 'exploit' rocks and smoke, either separately or in combination, it gets a lot easier. IMO, the game should always reward initiative and risk over damage farmed through 'advantageous' stealth mechanics. Yes, also in case of DD's as well as BB's. Goddam I knew it! The Chinese Virus is a hoax!

BTW, do you know how the game has performed during covid? With the upsurge in online gaming you'd expect WoWS to have experienced a similar boost in player activity but... has this actually manifested itself in some way? (Slightly off topic but somewhat relevant if you choose to see it that way.)

You have not heard of the very secret conspiracy manufacturing superfluous game modes as an excuse for not having any subs in the randoms? It is apparently some fallic thing.

One half of the explanation is that the time is accelerated, the other half is that they make the secondaries so utterly useless by design because they actually want those DD's to be able to destroy a BB carrying all manner of superior armament. The technical term for this, I believe, is 'game balance'. They might as well be. At least based on my experience, team play only occurs solely in the red team which is always expertly focusing the fire of five to six ships on their target (yours truly).

I always love it when the politicians promise to divide unemployment by half...

I do hope you aren't waiting for the subs to be in the randoms?

Do you mean someone was left without a rock of their own? Everyone in this game needs a comfy rock to hug.

PvE modes can be adjusted, PvP modes can't be adjusted, so the level of challenge in Convoy Operations would depend how well WG can adjust the AI responses, if we assume that the convoy itself is bots, and human players are handling the subs, their tactics would depend on player skill. In other words, how successful these operations would be, would depend entirely on factors that are not relevant in randoms. I have a bias against bad game design. That is not a fallacy, it is a fact. Don't argue facts with buzzwords, please. The randoms are currently a mess as far as I'm concerned. Mixing it further up with subs present won't make things better. The game is frequently touted as being 'arcade'. It isn't, though, nor is it a simulation. Arcade games are very simple as a rule, WoWS is not simple, it is very complex, albeit some of the complexity is making the game less fun and engaging to play. An arcade game would be like having a duck shoot version of what we have. Subs would make things more complex, but not more enjoyable as far as I'm concerned. That is my opinion, and opinions may differ. Just stop trying to present your opinions as facts. I don't want random battles that will last hours, I don't even want scenario battles that will last for hours, the game has built in acceleration for this purpose. What I want is intelligent and coherent gameplay, the kind of gameplay where you can make a calculated effort to win. Subs in randoms would be a further deviation from that. We are already seeing the effects of poorly done CV rework offering no real counterplay, I wonder how anyone can think that adding a further ship class in the randoms without sufficient options for counterplay would make it better. I don't need excuses for keeping them out of randoms, I have reasons for this. Your entire argument is based on promoting the fact that WG wants subs in the randoms and you consider all relevant counterarguments as 'fallacies'. You fail to convince me that there is any indication that introducing subs in the randoms would do anything to improve the state of the game, which, from a design and gameplay point of view, is what I consider the only valid argument in favour of introducing subs into the randoms. This valid argument is what is missing from your equation. Input Fail

Please note that these children do get older as years go by...