Verblonde

Exactly the same things that have been pointed out ad nauseum for months, but just in case there was a lack of clarity in the (probably hundreds of) previous posts: Pings mitigated by DCP. Possibly homing torps (TBC depending on what would replace DCP as ping mitigation). The fact that using depth-charges inevitably gets you obliterated by the submarine's allies, unless the sub is the last thing alive with line-of-sight.

I did actually wonder about mentioning that first part in my previous posts, but didn't think too many people would be dim enough to not know about the relationship between regular xp and the other types. Of course no-one is being forced to buy the things; my point is that - at that price, and given that there is very little benefit compared to one-use equivalents - the numbers of customers who are likely to is lower than would be the case at a lower price-point. That assumes there is no appetite to improve the bonuses.

You're half right (the first part), and you may be entirely right: it'll depend on whether the bulk of the customer base can work out that the value proposition for the permaflage is - IMO, of course - weak, compared to the free one-use alternatives that most people have no shortage of. Basically, does the number of sales at 5,000 doubloons out-strip those that would have been made at a lower price or not? My supposition is that the bulk of supership players won't be thrashing the nuts off them (for economic reasons; unless you're very good, it looks likely that other tiers will need to be played to fund the superships), and that argues against getting expensive permaflage, as you'll get fewer uses out of it. Even if you pay doubloons for the semi-equivalent (only +100% xp) one-use (and why would you when you have freebies?), you don't break even until you hit a hundred battles: Essentially, what WG are proposing here is for people to pay the same as the (already expensive) T10 permaflages, with the same vulnerabilities (per @Leo_Apollo11), but with comparatively poorer benefits; assuming WG's aim is maximum ROI (the 'I' bit being the staff time to create and market the things), I think they may struggle with this particular offer.

This. Well, it does answer a question I vaguely had: superships as a whole don't interest me, but is there any way to make them economically viable (specifically, via permaflage) if I fancied - say - giving Super-Shima a bit of a lash? The short answer appears to be 'no'. Why would WG think that even an inveterate whale like me would want to spend 5,000 doubloons (just shy of 14 quid in UKP) on a permaflage that does nothing for the economy, and gives an almost entirely worthless bonus besides the usual ones? I get that superships are *supposed* to be economically non-viable, but in that case more or less 'pure aesthetics' permaflage needs to be a *lot* cheaper to be an attractive proposition.

I voted 'no', although my real feelings are rather more nuanced: Submarines in their current form are a "hells, no!", and are actively encouraging me to play less. The key problem for me is the dcp-mitigated pings in particular; I'm undecided about homing torps if they could be mitigated by something else. My strong suspicion is that submarines belong in their own mode; this is due to the fundamental problems with - in particular - DD-sub interaction. WG claim that the premier anti-submarine weapon is depth-charges, and we all know how well it goes using them, given that you essentially have to run the submarine over to use them in most cases. If submarines can be fixed, I could easily be transferred to the 'vehement yes' camp, but I don't see any will from WG in this direction - they are under the delusion that what they have is basically good enough.

To be fair, submarines aren't unmitigated rubbish: if one worries about spending too much time playing computer games, they provide a useful way of keeping a lid on excessive playing time. My current policy is to play until I've run out of reports for submarines and then call it a day...

You're absolutely right; it all has the potential to get much worse too if/when the new CV spotting turns up and/or the stun mechanic - guess which consumable will almost certainly be used to mitigate the latter! I was just addressing the specific (deeply questionable) notion that depth-charges are the premier anti-submarine weapon in the game; I didn't want to go full 'wall of text' about everything that's wrong with the submarine implementation - others have already covered that off admirably.

I'm curious: did I miss the addition of an invisibility cloak to depth-charge equipped ships? The vast majority of times, the sequence of events with depth-charges is roughly as follows: Identify approximate location of submarine. Charge towards location with engine boost on (fuel smoke too, if you have it). Submarine itself/radar/hydro spot you long before you're in position to drop. Get obliterated by submarine's allies. Depth charges are wildly unhelpful when dealing with submarines (even the forward-firing ones), unless the opposition are blithering idiots. Of course, you'll probably tell me (words to the effect that) I know nothing and am simply doing it wrong? To put it in more meaningful terms: I imagine you can see what my spend on this game is usually like? Have a look at the last few months. Now, would you like to know what happened to my latest chunk of gaming spend? When you (WG) make changes to the primary game mode, that makes it significantly less fun to play, there will be financial consequences; I suppose you have to hope that there are more newbies who want to give WG money for submarines than old gits like me who are encouraged by the current implementation to do the exact opposite...

The other evening, I was in battle with a division of two T10 submarines, and a CV; whilst the CV had the decency to apologise, there is only one rational reaction:

She's mostly conventional (apart from getting Doolittle bombers, if I remember correctly); support CVs are a new 'test of concept' - as per a recent Dev Blog (https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/305).

You shouldn't. Next question?

Someone who'd just had an unhappy love affair, and didn't see why anyone else should have any fun...? Given that adding the stun mechanic is obviously going to be as much fun as experimental bowel surgery, why not just have three flights of planes: one each of the new smoke and chaff types (which actually sound - to me - like a potentially useful addition), plus one of the existing 'attack' types so CVs still have something violent to do?

Oh, so we no longer face a choice: remove ping and get burned/flooded to oblivion, or retain the ability to deal with the latter and get hit with homing torps with impunity? I must have missed that change. Or, did I miss the cooldown on DCP being reduced to twenty seconds or so (presumably in conjunction with a trebling of charges for those ships with limits), to avoid it being laughably over-taxed? To repeat: as long as pings/homing are mitigated by DCP, submarines are intolerable.

Okay, not going to reach for torches and pitchforks just yet; I'll wait and see what this really means in practice. That said, stun? Because that particular mechanic is *so* popular in WOT...

Get rid of homing entirely; the crux of what makes submarines entirely unacceptable is the homing thing, mitigated by DCP.

I would actively like submarines in the game *but* not in their current form. Pretty much this.

Thanks guys - my stupid moment. Fixing it now...

Dev Blog (Petro made slightly less like a submarine; Tashkent made slightly more like a submarine): https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/299

Once you have an account set up on the 'other' server, open WGC: When you click on the icon top left, the above slide-out appears; if you click on the icon on the right, you get a drop-down of all the eligible accounts you have. You'll note the little red icon indicating which server the account belongs to.

Only a few days to wait! Yay! Hurrah! ... ... ... What, you didn't think I'd suffered some hideous brain injury such that I was now looking forward to submarines...?!

Ditto... Not grumbling though: free's free, and - more pertinently - I'm starting to lose track of all these variously fictitious ships, so the ones of offer would have been largely wasted on me...

Common, albeit not universal. Besides what @SkollUlfr said, the way I tend to deal with this (as another DD main) is to make sure my counter-DD kung fu is as strong as it can be, and try to do my best to ensure that the side without their DDs after a few minutes isn't mine; most BBs that hide at the back aren't helping their team very much, and allow you to focus on other ships that are higher priority as a result i.e. DDs and cruisers. As fun as it is to blow up BBs, you can console yourself with the knowledge that you'll be rewarded more for damaging smaller ships. That, of course, all assumes the BBs running away are on the other side; when it's your side that wore the brown pants (and the opposition didn't; if they both did, see previous), just play more conservatively - your basic aim is still the same i.e. do DD things, you just have to be a bit more careful to avoid any opposing BBs that are close enough to hit something as small as you are.

Dev Blog (surprisingly lucid piece on ship restrictions in Clans): https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/298

This is the fundamental problem: to be effective in Clans, the team has to be assembled according to an overriding plan, such that each ship in the team compliments the others (as far as possible); to try and do this randomly would be 'whirlwind in a junkyard' territory...

Qualifying as the latter (probably; on a good day, anyway), I think I tend to agree, especially with the lower tier ones. The only one I've played against real people so far is the T9, and she's a bit more comfortable (or at least less uncomfortable - I think the un-boosted gun range is a shade less than 10 km?), although I'm still a long way from being effective in her. At the very least, for the incompetent, they're pretty effective in Coop... You kind of get used to it, although having Smaland already helped in terms of practice - choosing when to activate the thing is key, so you can get the benefit from every second of run-time...