Karasu_Browarszky

Generally speaking, it depends on the quality of the sub player. I mostly get into trouble when I'm in a DD or a cruiser trying to do ASW for my team. Sometimes in a BB if I 'overextend' or am careless enough not to hang out further back.

They added a level of complexity. That is neither an upgrade or a downgrade by itself. For an evaluation you need to check how they have impacted the way other ships are played. No, that is not the basics that is the result of how WG has 'balanced' the game. We've known there are potential problems for seven years. What you describe is how the players 'adapted' to them. Further changes WG has made over the years have only made matters worse. Those further changes I mentioned. Yes I see now you hate the same things I hate, isn't it odd how we feel so very different about the subs as a 'solution'? I don't play Clan wars, so can't exactly comment there. I'm not annoyed by inbalance, I'm annoyed that isn't factored into the gameplay. I'm a most casual player myself. I want to have fun going shooty shooty and maneuvering as part of my team in an attempt to gain the upper hand and score victory. I'm so casual that I would prefer not to have to try to artifically limit my gameplay options because of poor game design choices and implementations by WG.

Yes... and that's why many of us here won't agree with you because we are primarily gamers not gamblers. We have an expectation that games are designed around a gameplay oriented approach. Understandably, you have to accept that a game is also designed to make money. Games that fail to make money are either too crappy, or there aren't enough players around to sustain them over the long run. Nonetheless, thank you for confirming that there is no gameplay justification for the introduction of the subs. They were detrimental for gameplay years ago, and they remain detrimental to gameplay today. The only reason why we are having them now is because, in your own words, 'Money told WG to Implement Submarines'. I took the liberty of not quoting you on the smiley.

Steam? I suppose Steam can have knowledgeable reviews, but considering the clamor about the subs, I should think the net should have lots of reviews on the subject. We don't need the 'world to agree with us'. It would suffice if WG just got back to the basics which means developing a somewhat naval warfare kind of arcade battle game or something instead of somewhat shady feeling casino operation dressed up to look like an action game. On the positive side, the operations have picked up tremendously since the introduction of the random operations. Sure, they could improve and expand on them, but there's a little voice echoing in my head that warns me that it's maybe best if WG were not to touch them as during the past few years they have perfected their reverse Midas touch to legendary perfection....

I take it then you couldn't find any such reviews.

How do you counter the subs, then?

The fact that the subs are bad for gameplay is not a matter of opinion, or some secret 'agreement' amongst anyone. Point out a single source where anyone who is reviewing the subs in WoWS is able to tell that they are a positive addition to the game. They are only good if you like broken gameplay.

Er... no, unless crap has gotten a lot more subjective lately. We have our little lobbies in the echo chamber. I think what most of us agree there is that we want balanced and, hopefully, varied gameplay for WoWS. What we are definitely not getting is balanced gameplay and the two areas where this is painfully apparent are the post-RTS CV's and the subs. The old video outlined the problem with the subs and 'chief' nailed it. None of the changes and degrades WG has introduced since then change the fundamentals of the underlying reality: subs are bad for gameplay.

No offense meant to you personally, but what you are saying is that the majority wants crap and WG is their crap peddler of choice then.

Uhm... might be interesting to know in which direction your changes would take the game. Not that it makes a whole lot of difference, because the long term pattern is that the changes WG actually implementd generally just serve to make everything worse than what it used to be. I assume they also serve to make WG richer than they used to be, because otherwise the accounting department would have long since stormed the development department.

Yes... but what has changed in terms of how subs would fit now better in the game. I don't see any relevant changes occurring which leads me to suspect the subs don't fit any better now than in 2015.

Perhaps daddy could be kind enough to point out exactly in which way has gameplay changed so significantly that it turned the subs from an unacceptable proposition from a gameplay point of view to a match made in heaven?

No. No I don't.

Why does the year matter? Are we not talking about the same game any more, or at least what's left of it after years of incompetent tampering?

This clip is probably what many of us have seen.

While the game is not. I agree.

Next time I throw up I must point out the 'diversity'.

It just dawned on me... what happens to a cow when it no longer gives any milk?....

Server connection problem?

Yet another one of those tiresome fringe opinions. Or that's how we will soon be educated for our benefit....

That gave me an idea. You know, you can still go back to early 2015 and read those posts. In fact, if you are interested you can chart the games rise and fall through the forums. The early times are not about bellyaching but instead they bring up problems in different areas, technical questions, gameplay questions, stuff they like and stuff they don't like. Perhaps the difference is that back then they expected problems to be sorted out and the game be developed responsibly on a customer oriented basis not just as a money grabbing excercise to see the fools departed of their money. Some quick pickings (by the CBT crowd):

I have very few friends to begin with... dare I even mention WoWS any more to any of them...

That's what makes me say that if the players can pick any ship (they want to play), that would be fine as long as the operations were designed to make allowances for that. Two ways of going about it. Making sure there is something any player can do with any ship within the allowed range of ships, and secondly, making sure that there will be the necessary composition to complete the operation, and this is where the bot complement would come in.

Uhm... they've never really been properly a legit part of the game, if you think in terms of what camo and paint schemes are supposed to do in the real world. If the camos and been designed to achieve things like making the ships harder to spot and increasing dispersion, which some of them did, and if they had skipped all the arcade stuff, then they would have been a legit part of the game. In that case, they should have been restricted to either historical or realistic camo/paint scheme patterns.

Yeah... it would be better if WG had an idea what is the ideal team composition for any given OPS. Then, maybe make them a little harder and increase the team size by three or four ships, allocate a predetemined number of slots for human players, the remainder for a 'balancing' bot complement. Then, depending on what kind of a team MM produces, the game would select a complement of bot ships that would make sure the team has the necessary number of different classes of ships. I make it sound more complicated than what it would be in reality, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm thinking here. Wut. Never seen that happen...