Karasu_Browarszky

Your idea that randoms can handle subs is itself a fallacy, as it runs counter to proof AFAIK. The randoms would definitely not benefit from the subs. Even if they could create the perfect balance for the new meta, they still would not benefit from having the subs because it would add just one more level of complexity to the game. We would probably see a significant drop in player retention. There is no indication that subs could not belong in certain operations, same they as CV's would belong in others, or merchantmen. Think of the Dynamo. Operations, unlike the randoms, require complexity because they are PvE. Denial is a form of self deception. I claim one thing, you claim the opposite. Which position do you think is supported by facts instead of opinions alone? If the operation were designed with subs in mind, as they would be if they were to feature convoy action, they would only be boring for people who do not enjoy playing a game designed to feature submarine tactics. If you find submarine play so boring and useless, why are you so strongly advocating introducing them into the randoms?

But that would effectively turn karma into just one more currency to have....

All battles must eventually come to end, and fighting resolved somehow. If the BB's were designed to primarily face off the enemy capital ships, they would also serve to protect their own light forces from enemy BB's. This is a dual benefit. Theoretically, yes... but why. In reality, you might get light forces only engaging, but out of port you would hardly spot any capital ships without at least some sort of escort to back them up, not to mention actual task forces. The fact that the game is considered an arcade game and not a simulation game (not to be confused with a fully realistic combat simulator) should only be reflected in its simpler controls and mechanics, not in the are of immersion. To me it never makes sense to reduce the immersion on purpose. Having all these battle elements present at the same time would, IMO, enhance the immersion and gaming experience. I... am afraid I pick up on the reference... I blinked, and about 30+ messages appeared in this thread. Most, though, seem to be rather discussing OP rather than the merits (or lack thereof) of what he is saying. Yeah, when playing a BB I do hate having to re-focus my efforts on trying to fight off enemy light forces, because I really wish there was enough team play for me to be able to depend even that much on the other players (Cruisers/DD's). I can understand DD's trying to torp the enemy BB's, because it is far easier to torp those than the cruisers, or DD's. DD's are mostly vulnerable only when they operate in the area between the enemy lines, or when they are attempting to cap. Could get interesting, if they actually have that intention. However, unless they also address the balance problems it is going to result in a nosedive for this game, especially judging from some of the comments in this thread alone. I'm one of those players here who ceaselessly bring up the concept of 'Era' balancing. If this had been chosen as the basis of the overall balancing, we wouldn't be having so many problems with this or that ship unexpectedly being incredibly OP over some ship while incredible vulnerable to some other ship. You probably think this is the rock/paper/scissors thing, but to me it just seems like lack of consistence and bad design. Apart from the Era concept, I actually rather like what I brought up earlier (even if it is not what the OP meant). Let us assume that if the game were balanced so that capital ships would be prioritizing other capital ships and light forces other light forces, their armament and its effectiveness would be balanced in a way that allows it have maximum effectiveness against their intended target classes, namely BB's and CV's, while having (significantly) reduced effectiveness against any and all light forces. Not completely defenseless, but neither effective enough that the enemy light forces could not easily evade them and survive the encounter. Capital ship engagement would serve as a threat, light ship engagement as a deterrent. What this would mean for the CV's is also rather interesting. In this scheme they would be optimized for attacking enemy capital ships, BB's and enemy CV's. From this follows, that their full force would not be directed against cruisers and DD's, because that would be inefficient. They could be running automated/manual CAP missions to detect enemy activity but that would be like limited to strafing enemy light forces. What I just typed there, will probably bring up an Ocean of red flags out here... IMO, though, these changes would address the worst failings of the current game balance and meta and actually enhance game play for everyone involved.

Well, the game balance is a bleeding joke...

Train Deadeye, find map border, snipe, enjoy?

Well.. are you saying it is not fun to engage and fight non-BB's?... Would the game actually be less fun if the BB's would primarily focus on fighting each other, while the other classes (not CV's) would focus on fighting the non-BB elements? These two types of fighting would be very different, so the game play would not be stale, there would probably still be people who either would like one over the other, or both for sake of variety. The single important thing is that both types of fighting would need to be rewarded equally in terms of their contribution to the outcome.

Hmm.... I somewhat beg to differ, cause I seen online games with PvP where the aim is to have a group of player classes with varied abilities so that the combined skills will help the team to achieve victory. All games are, of course, different but a similar approach could have been taken in WoWS, though I can't readily see how, for instance, 'healers' might have worked during battle. If the current situation is to be preferred, it would have been simpler to only make all the ships cosmetic shells and given them pretty much the same stats. BB would be 'tanks' or 'damage dealers', but in Online PvP games they wouldn't survive on their own for long if in those roles. In fact, even in real life BB's would not survive on their own. I think the basic thing that is broken here is that any ship can sink any other ship, and it is sometimes made artificially either harder, or easier, than what could be logically expected.

In simple terms, what is the defining difference, apart from the obvious one which is time management?

Yeah... those are the light forces and they are known as the light forces for a reason... OP is correct about broken logic if you are asking me; an actual battle should take place in two or three (possible 4 if you count in the subs) dimensions that interact (engage or support, depending) in the course of the battle. There is the Mighty Glorious Battle between the Capital Ships, and there's the little skirmish action between the light forces. None of this basically happens in WoWS. However, the game allows you to achieve the minimizing of these issues, but sadly that component of the game is entirely dependent on team play.... which is why the Randoms are such a **** show.

You've been reading the wrong books, please report yourself for reading illicit material. Only read sanctioned history books to stay in touch with reality. Well, some ships kind of look historical (while others do not), no effort certainly been spared to render all of those Soviet Legends true to history, right down to every detail. Otherwise, it seems the most historically accurate parts of the game are those battle and launch date calendars they publish. Not that they have the slightest relevance to anything we see in the game itself...

I'm not opposed to the subs per se (Silent Service veteran both CBM-64 and PC), I'm opposed to poor and potentially unhistorical implementation of them in Randoms. Not that I think the randoms are the cream of the cream of game modes, but it is what I think many people, myself included, play most. Who knows, if they botch it up royally, I may move to PvE only status.

This whole sub issue is scarily similar to the 'wheelies' in WoT. At least there used to be two opposing camps locked in their respective positions, one stating that the wheelies are going to wreck the gameplay, and the other camp stating they aren't a problem. The wheelies came in, and I'm one of those people who since then started to play less and less... Seeing how well that went, I'm concerned forcing the subs into the randoms is going to produce the same kind of pattern in WoWS.

It is not an excuse, it is the reason. There is a difference between an excuse and a reason, if I may so point out. If the game balance can't handle the subs in randoms, what is your excuse or reason @Sunleader for absolutely having them in the randoms instead of the operations or other game modes where they actually belong? The above is lifted straight off the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_warfare I know some people (lets call them the 'Arcadians') want to have a game which pretty much renders all realism and real world 'balance' a complete joke, but IMO the above tells you that there are actually reasons (yes, reasons) why if WG game mechanics are to maintain at least a token connection to reality why subs have no place in the randoms. Couple that with the game balance reasons and you will quickly run out of excuses for absolutely needing to have them in the randoms, for what ever reason that I fail to imagine.

Not really exceptional, (only finished 2nd on the roster) but who cares when you survive by the skin of your teeth after having faced about 4 BB's circling the last cap like a bunch of sharks, fighting off a CV at the same time, managing to secure the cap, escape with a few HP's to spare. Intense, fun and engaging, with a nail biter finish!

... any more...

You mean in Glasgow?... .. In some parts of the world, it can be bad for your underwear.

Comedy seems profitable these days...

Not all opinions are equal...

Would this be off the peg or a custom rig, just asking as asrock doesn't ring any bells for me. Dude, you aren't helping...

I haven't noticed any change post update as opposed to before. If there are problems, it must be down to some very particular thing in the graphics or completely unrelated.

While there is no such thing as a bad victory, losing a fun game is preferable to losing a miserable one.

You must be new here.

'Yes!' As others have kindly said above. I don't normally use it myself, but there are times when it can be useful, and easier to use than the in client one.

Well.. some ships are equipped with anti-locking brakes... This is a vexed question. I prefer a touch of realism in the game, so I would imagine that a relatively high speed is in order, perhaps 3/4 speed in most situations, reversing engines in emergencies and going flank speed when charging the enemy battle line. But that's just me. About tight turns... I don't know how the game mechanics work, but to me deceleration when turning seems counter-intuitive, at least in reality if you reverse the engines when turning the rudder, you would turn slower.