HMS_Kilinowski

When I saw the range buff, I thought as well that an HE buff would have been the better buff. Ona may argue that HE is a noob mechanic and doesn't promote good BB-play. But it is the defining property of the RN-BB-Line, so the HE-buff is the correct and fitting change. A BB with 380mm in T8 and no fire chance for angled targets is imo missing a saving gimmick. Richelieu at least has speed to make a surprise push and expose broadsides. Monarch to me is just a combination of all mediocre properties of other lines. Good concealment is a feature, I know, but a BB with 28kts hardly ever pops up in a surprising position without beind spotted long before by CVs or an impatient shot.

Exactly this is why WG disallowed CCs to talk about ships before they were final. Cause then people like you took the first video of the first iteration as a reference and suddenly (a) you make your decision to buy said ship based on that outdated video and (b) you accuse WG of ripping you off. If you can be bothered to search and watch the first ever video, why is WG then obliged to inform you about every change from there on? Couldn't you be bothered to just watch another newer video that takes into account the final changes to balance the ship? WG did not publish the properties of the ship. A CC did. So it's not WG's job to correct this CC, but the CC's job to follow up. It's strange that you didn't get the message, cause I did. I watched the videos of the early Hizen and then, imagine, I watched the newer reviews again, before deciding whether to commit to the dockyard event. I had all information. I decided Hizen was not worth the effort and I skipped it. Best dockyard decision I made so far. It not only saved me doubloons, but also whining about a ship I knew was going to be mediocre. His stats on Achorage are only better cause he does, what most people in our clan do: Play the worse ships in divisions, so your div mates can (a) carry you a bit and (b) compensate some of the weaknesses of the ship picking some complementary ships. The Anchorage has bad range and a bad smoke firing penalty, which leaves a thin ring of action, where you can smoke fire without being spotted by a DD that you cannot see. You might get killed in smoke by torpedoes due to the terrible acceleration, which is like Henri without propulsion mod and boost. But you don't need to worry about that cause the torps will never reach you in time, not before that DD that moved in to torp your smoke, got you spotted in smoke and deleted by the BBs behind it. The Anchorage is outright trash. It only works if you got a reliable DD in your division, which shields you off against spotting.

Du mögest der ewigen Verdammnis nochmal entronnen sein. Allerdings muss ich auch klarstellen: Zwischen die schlechtesten und besten Spieler passen sehr viele kleine Schritte der Erkenntnis. Keiner braucht Tabellen auswendig lernen oder ähnlich langweilige Wege beschreiten, nur um besser zu werden. Flambass ist kürzlich mit der Stock-Hatsuharu ins Gefecht und hat erst im Gefecht bemerkt, dass die Torps ja nur 6km Reichweite haben. Da hab ich mir schon an den Kopf gefasst. Ich vermute, man muss locker 60% Solo-Winrate haben, bevor man sich überhaupt in solche Details vertiefen muss, um noch weiter zu wachsen. Will sagen: Man sollte sich keinesfalls von der Fülle an Details entmutigen lassen. WoWs erlaubt sehr viele Wege, um sich zu verbessern. Nehmen wir eben gerade die Psychologie, die in diesem Thema besprochen wird. Natürlich ist es eine Facette auf dem Weg zum Sieg, dass man die Psyche seines Gegners versteht und schamlos ausnutzt. Natürlich hau ich mit meiner HE-Munition unbarmherzig auf den ersten in der Reihe drauf, damit dem sofort die Lust am Angriff vergeht und er flüchtet. Ich weiß ja, dass sofort der zweite den Schwanz einzieht und mit dem ersten flüchtet. Mit den Torps ganz genau so. Wenn jeder sein Fett abbekommt, dann dauert es zum einen länger, bis der Gegner in sich zusammenfällt, weil jeder brav heilen kann. Das stärkt aber auch den Zusammenhalt des Gegners. Wenn ich dagegen einen Gegner massiv fokussiere, dann generiere ich Frust. Der Spieler wird sich ärgern, wird mit seinem Team Streit anfangen. Die Stimmung dort geht in den Keller. Das geht mir oft auch so. Alleine wenn man seine eigene Psyche versteht und die des Gegners, macht das gleich mal locker 5 Prozentpunkte in der Siegrate aus.

Interessantes Thema. Zunächst mal möchte ich mich, stellvertretend für die Forenmitglieder, die dich downvoten, für deren Blödheit entschuldigen. Wenn ein Mensch hier ins Forum kommt und Hilfe sucht, ist es mega-unreif und unsensibel, darauf herumzutrampeln. Nun zu deinem Problem. Wie du selber schon richtig erkannt hast, ist es menschlich völlig normal und nachvollziehbar, sich nicht unnötig in Gefahr zu begeben. Das rettet Leben in der Realität. Wer sich z.B. mit selbstgebastelten Raketen in den Himmel schießen lässt, um zu beweisen, dass die Erde flach sei, oder beim Turnen auf Hochhäusern zu Tode stürzt, weil er Follows generieren will, dem fehlt dieser evolutionär sehr hilfreiche Sinn und der stirbt konsequent im realen Leben. Das Problem, sofern man es überhaupt als "Problem" bezeichnen kann, ist eher das Unvermögen, reale Gefahr von abstrakter Gefahr zu unterscheiden. Dir droht ja keine Gefahr, aber dein Verstand vertieft sich zu sehr in das Irreale und reagiert mit Stress. Als zum ersten Mal der Schwarz-Weiß-Film "Psycho" im deutschen Fernsehen gezeigt wurde, hat meine Großmutter sich nachts nicht mehr auf die Toilette getraut. Wenn das nach einem Psychologen verlangt, dann muss jeder zum Psychologen. Für dich stellt sich eben die Frage, warum du dich dieser Situation aussetzt. Der Soldat, den du beschreibst, konnte sich seine Situation nicht aussuchen. Er wäre standrechtlich erschossen worden, wäre er vom Schlachtfeld geflohen. Dich zwingt dagegen nichts und niemand. Also was motiviert dich? Wenn dir die hübschen Schiffe gefallen, die kann man auch im Coop-Modus beschießen. Der ist deutlich stressfreier. Ich selber spiele den immer dann, wenn ich eben müde bin oder sonst keine Lust auf konzentriertes Spiel habe. Und so viel schlechter ist er auch nicht. Da kann man sich locker 2k-3k BasisXP pro Stunde erspielen und das sehr entspannt. Ich kann natürlich nicht ganz verhehlen, dass Spieler, die in Zufallsgefechten mehr schlecht als recht spielen, die Nerven ihres Teams strapazieren. Dann bekommst du oft blöde Sprüche zu hören und wirst gepingt. Das erhöht dann wiederum den Druck auf dich und stresst dich noch mehr, verstärkt also dieses Verhalten. Deswegen halte Ich Zufallsgefechte für keine gute Idee. Meine Oma hat eben auch meist Romanzen angeschaut und keine Horrorfilme mehr. Zum Psychologen hat sie nie gemusst und ein zufriedenes bis glückliches Leben hat sie auch gehabt. Es gibt duchaus sowas wie Anstand und Sportsgeist. Schiffe anschauen kann man schließlich vielerorts und selbst in WoWs in vielen Spielmodi. Es gibt keinen legitimen Grund, warum man dafür anderen Spielern ihre Erfolgserlebnisse verderben müsste. Ein Stück weit gehört sicher auch Empathie und Verantwortungsbewusstsein dazu, sich als Teil eines Teams zu verstehen. WoWs ist nun mal ein Spiel, in dem es darum geht, das gegnerische Team zu zerstören und Kontrollpunkte zu halten, mit dem Spielziel des Sieges. Wer das Spielziel nicht akzeptieren kann, der soll ein anderes Spiel spielen. WoWs ist kein Rollenspiel, bei dem historische Schlachten nachgestellt werden sollen. Es geht nicht primär um die optischen Reize. Es gibt ein definiertes Spielziel. Wer den roten Knopf drückt, der erklärt sich mit den Spielregeln einverstanden, die da zuoberst heißen "Versuch zu gewinnen." Wäre es mit den Regeln vereinbar, das Spielziel zu sabotieren, würden inaktive Spieler nicht nach einiger Zeit in den Coop-Modus gebannt. Es ist viel mehr ein Fall von "Im Zweifel für den Angeklagten", dass dies nicht öfter passiert. Software kann eben nicht so trennscharf entscheiden, wie es der menschliche Verstand vermag. Sonst wäre so mancher Spieler längst und zurecht aus den Random Battles raus. Wenn Spieler zu faul sind, die einfachsten Regeln aus 5min-Tutorials zu beachten, hat das mit Spaß haben nichts mehr zu tun. Es ist schlicht Egoismus und Desinteresse.

The game has seen a lot of selfish designs lately. Most newer DD-lines are not great for cap contesting. With submarines I haven't seen a single action that could be defined as support. I think submarines have been designed to cater to the idea of the torpboat-genius sneaking behind enemy lines to find and torp the CV. WG has realized these people exist and want to do their selfish play. They have come to the conclusion that you can mitigate the lack of team play of one player by putting an equally selfish player on the other team, have selfish players matched in a class of their own, a.k.a. submarines. What I find more aggravating is their late impact on the battle. A sub can sneak around all game long, not contributing, and at the end it can sit in you base and stall your points gain. Same goes for CVs and hybrids btw, that can spot a DD in the end game and deny an advantage that is the result of one team consequently dominating. The better team should win, not the team that has kept a useless potato in his back pocket.

I wanted to wait a bit and see if it's maybe a provider thing. But it's not getting better and also bound to WoWs. I get these ping spikes at least once in 3 battles. They vary between 200ms and 1500ms. I even once got a 10000ms ping. They have started with Update 10.8. In CB once several players experienced them to the point, where we thought our opponent might be DDOSing.

Coop is mislabelled. Random Battles are more coop than Coop Battles, cause there players need to cooperate to reach a common goal. Coop Battles however have become toxic. There is no need to cooperate cause a win nowadays is pretty much given. Players compete over who can farm the most XP. It's by definition a PvP mode. You even get reported for "going over your allotment". I remember early coop atmosphere was very friendly and appreciative. People would F10 and F12 a lot, give compliments. Now it's a rush for the buffet. It also becomes increasingly toxic on high tiers, cause the service cost in sum is higher than the value that can be earned from killing the bots. A high tier game has 1-3 winners and 6 players who lose credits. The irony is that this design promotes adverse selection. Players who are bad in coop can't earn credits anymore. As a result they switch to high tier Random Battles, where they are as useless as a second rectum for their team. How to solve Coop? Easy. Make it asymmetric. Put in 12 bots or even more. Use the number of bots to balance the game mode down to a 50% winrate. The increased number of bots will also increase the earnings on credits and XP. In a balanced Coop maybe a super-unicum level will finally be an achievement.

Just out of curiosity: Why do the "snowflakes" start this early compared to the last years?

I'm looking at Zao from a strict CB perspective. I played it for hundreds of Clan Battles. The concealment difference matters a lot, with Zao more than with other cruisers. Zao plays a defensive role on weak flanks. The opening move is to close the distance into often undetected cruisers, then turn out, dumping stealth torps in the way of the attackers and kite. In my experience in these hundreds of CBs, the Zao needs that extra bit of concealment to complete the turn and be sufficiently angled before the first shells arrive. A bit more hp doesn't help a ship that gets citadelled getting caught broadside and once you're spotted, the chance to use torps goes out the window. The Zao may have good guns, but her dpm is not alright. She has 178k raw dpm stock with 34mm pen. Des Moines has 270k. Nevsky has 200k plus 37mm pen with IFHE and still comparable fire chance. Venezia 220k with 54mm pen. Even Hindi has 180k with 51mm pen and better fire chance. There is a good reason why the Zao is not used in competitive environments anymore for years. And that was already before they removed the dispersion bug on the LM. The Zao benefitted from that dispersion buff, cause it promotes her play style. She lacks dpm to her opponents and somewhat mitigates that by a higher hit ratio. If you lower the hit ratio, the opponents win the battle of attrition. One can argue if even better dispersion is, what Zao needs, but it definitely makes it more effective in its prime role and it was not performing above average, when the LM got nerfed. Also Zao suffers a lot from losing Preventative Maintenance. I specifically remember respeccing my Zao during Clan Battle season 4 cause the amount of rudder hits and destroyed torp tubes was so high that I gave up RPF for PM. The nerf that Zao went through, partially ship-specific, mostly cruiser specific, removed it from its sweet spot, which is why it's not working anymore. And that comes on top of the meta changes that introduced better alternatives and more BBs and cruisers with armor >32mm. This is what I meant. What good is 34mm pen in a meta with Petros and Stalingrads? Look at BB center armor: Yamato and Shikishima 57mm, Montana and Ohio 38mm, Vermont 51mm, Kremlin 60mm, Colombo 50mm, Kurfürst 50mm and the new Schlieffen 50mm. On the other side Slava, Conqueror and Thunderer, Republique and Bourgogne have 32mm. So a Zao can pen 5 out of 14 BBs. If you just look at silver BBs, it can pen 2 out of 9 BBs. A Zao's playstyle currently is to depend on RNG fires while the guns of half the BBs in the game - Yamato, Shikishima, Ohio, Vermont, Kremlin, Colombo (SAP) and Thunderer - overmatch her 30mm deck and sides. The answer to this is an hp buff of 2000 points. Well, if that doesn't fix it, I can't, for the love of god, say what will. I agree Marco Polo needed a concealment buff. The 1.8 sigma is the standard for BBs and I see no reason why it needs to land more SAP on smaller targets.

I think Zao needs more than a slight HP-buff. It needs back the concealment it lost when CE got nerfed. Zao had 9.7km, which is needed for a ship that has bad torp angles and a a big turning circle. Also Wargaming removed the dispersion bonus from the Legendary Module, claiming the LM was too powerful in comparison to the alternative modules. However that dispersion was needed to compensate the low dpm. So the dispersion buff should be internalized into the ship itself. And finally with so many ships having more than 32mm of armor, Zao needs either a buff in fire chance or better HE penetration. The Z-44 starts getting interesting. Here Wargaming buffed exactly the right parameter. It was bad concealment that punished this torpedo boat and made it a T-9 Akatsuki. Torp boats need good concealment since they are the hunted. With this buff Z-44 might significantly improve its aggregate winrate. The Yueyang needed that buff on torp reload. It was nerfed too hard in the past. Now Wargaming should also buff the T8 and T9 DDs on par. The Monarch didn't need more range. It is suffering from the poor caliber coupled with mediocre dispersion and bad fire chance. To bring it in line with the rest of the RN BBs, it would rather need a buff in fire chance. Marco Polo already has devastating SAP volleys. Better dispersion is going to result in too many dev strikes on DDs. A buff on reload would imo have been the better choice

Ich meinte primär das Prinzip, einzelne Schiffe durch allgemeine Veränderungen zu treffen. Kronshtadt gab's für 750k FXP und diese kann man auch für Dublonen, also Echtgeld im weiteren Sinne, kaufen. Es war die Musashi, die es sowohl für FXP als auch Kohle zu kaufen gab.

Nein, es bleibt jetzt wohl so. Wenn wir über Kaufempfehlungen reden, meinen wir i.d.R. das Preis-Leistungsverhältnis. Dieses ist seit geraumer Zeit nun gedeckelt. Man gibt zwar nicht mehr Geld aus für weniger Inhalt, aber die Angebote sind standardisiert. Sie sind geringfügig günstiger als der Normalpreis. Die Admiralspakete sind der Versuch, mit belanglosem Plunder noch mehr Geld wegzukratzen. Davon profitiert der Verkäufer, da es sich um digitale Güter handelt, die nach Belieben ohne Produktionskosten aus dem Nichts generiert werden können. Viel stärker wirkt sich da schon der neue Disclaimer aus. Jedes neue Schiff enthält in seiner Beschreibung nun einen Satz, dass das Schiff in seiner Leistung angepasst werden darf, falls dies "angemessen erscheint" (sry, ich kenne nur die englische Formulierung). Jetzt überlegen wir mal: Kaufempfehlung = gutes Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis. Da sollten bei uns allen die Glocken läuten. Was macht eine Kaufempfehlung denn aus? Doch nur der Umstand, dass ich ein gutes Produkt zu einem relativ günstigen Preis bekomme. Der Preis sei mal dahingestellt. Wenn der Verkäufer nach dem Kauf die Qualität des gekauften Produktes willkürlich rückwirkend verschlechtern kann, dann kann das Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis sich jederzeit ändern. Der Kunde kauft die Katze im Sack. Was heute ein starkes Schiff sein mag, wofür man gerne Geld ausgibt, kann morgen bereits zu derartiger Bedeutungslosigkeit verschlechtert werden, dass der Kunde seinen Kauf bedauert. Ich habe rechtlich keine Garantie mehr. Unter diesen Bedingungen kann niemand mehr eine Kaufempfehlung aussprechen. Der einzig verbleibende wertbildende Faktor ist, wie ich als Käufer dem Verkäufer vertraue, mein Produkt nicht willkürlich zu verschlechtern. Wenn du sagst "Wargaming würde mich nie übern Tisch ziehen", kannst du weiterhin bedenkenlos zugreifen. Aufwertungen von Schiffen waren auch bisher problemlos möglich, also zielt dieser Disclaimer auf Abwertungen ab. Das macht zumindest mich skeptisch. Falls ich nun gemäßigt bleibe und Wargaming keine schlechten Absichten unterstelle, muss ich dennoch davon ausgehen, dass jedes Schiff mittelfristig in seiner Effektivität auf Mittelmaß gedrückt wird. Ich bekomme also kein leistungsstarkes Schiff. Dann dürfen bei der Kaufentscheidung die Leistungsmerkmale des Schiffes keine Rolle spielen. Jeder Käufer sollte dann über den Kauf nur danach entscheiden, ob das Schiff von seinem Spielstil her interessant für ihn ist. Das ist reine Geschmackssache. Und damit fällt das Konzept Kaufempfehlung endgültig in sich zusammen. Mein persönliches Credo: Ich kaufe nur noch alte Schiffe, die den Disclaimer nicht enthalten. Auch diese Schiffe wurden gelegentlich durch die Hintertüre abgewertet (Smolensk ohne Kapitänsskill für erhöhte Reichweite; Gremyashchy nach Verschwinden des Stealth-Firing; Kronshtadt mit verlängerten Bränden). Aktuell können alte Klassiker sogar nach Belieben über schlechte Bewaffnung gegen U-Boote abgeschwächt werden, ohne die vertraglich zugesicherte Leistung anzugreifen. Allerdings sind solche Nerfs noch die Ausnahme und betreffen selten nur ein einziges Schiff. Deswegen werde ich, aufgrund der höheren Rechtssicherheit, mich auf alte Schiffe beschränken.

Submarines imo need 3 changes to be fun to play and non-toxic to play against: 1. Make the torpedoes standard unguided torpedoes. Make them reload fast to compensate the lower hit ratio 2. Remove the pings or reduce their role to a more precise RPF-like indicator. 3. Nerf ASW area of effect and increase their damage. Historically a sub didn't require a dozen hits to be destroyed, but the hits had to be pretty close. Currently they do damage if the hit the same postal code, which also gives subs no means of dodging. tl;dr Introduce skill into sub play.

After 2 div mates already quit the game for good in a friendly clan, now, for the first time, a player from my own clan is leaving the game due to the submarines. Thanks, Wargaming. Do you know how much effort it is to get good players for the clan? This was one. We find them, we get them into the flow and then you make them leave.

... which would be counterintuitive. The reason to introduce the toxic homing torpedoes was to compensate high risk with high reward. One would think that less risk of getting destroyed is generally favored by the players, even if the rewards come in more continuously. WG created the homing torpedoes to try and solve an imbalance that was forced upon the game by lots of counters and restrictions to submarines. Originally they would have fitted in quite nicely, could maybe have taken he role of super-torpedo-boats and be matched as DDs. Somehow WG reminds me of a phenomenon of my childhood, when you would create something and not allow your parents to see it, before it was finished, to increase e amou of srprise/delight and sometimes shock. I had hoped Wargaming would use the long development process to frequently exchange ideas directly with the community, the customer, so to speak. Not doing so, they imo created the "Homer": Now the sunk cost forces them to ignore the flaws of the design and declare it a success, even if it is not one yet or might never be one and, depending on where they move from here on, even if they risk backfire into the success of the entire game. Ofc they can still save this, if they finally decide to start the dialogue. Unfortunately this has not been their philosophy. They rather produce fancy expensive video-monologues than have a friendly chat.

Das wird auch noch ein Nachspiel haben. Jeder der die Tarnung gestern bekommen hat, hat sie ja einen Tag lang nutzen können. Dafür müssen natürlich alle bezahlen. Bei Wargaming überlegen sie jetzt, was der Miet-Preis für eine Perma-Tarnung sein könnte und dann werden euch ein paar Dublonen vom Konto abgezogen. Da braucht keiner rumheulen. Das ist nur konsequent. Bei WoWs weht jetzt ein anderer Wind.

And this is why we can't have nice things. Si tacuisses ....

Dear Wargaming, I present to you the feedback of a friend of mine who left the game because of the submarines. I specifically got in contact with him and hope you value this effort, as normally you wouldn't get any more feedback from people who have moved on. So this is hopefully a good piece of qualitative insight. This player has bought ~75% of the premium ships and spent a lot on ingame ressources, loot boxes and premium time. He's not a whale, but pretty close. Most of all, he had 20k+ battles and played for 5 years. I give you my word that I am not changing the content of his message. I will just edit out the profanities in italics and brackets, as you can imagine he is slightly frustrated. So without further ado, here it is, do with it as you see fit:

Let's be clear about one thing: I don't want a radical rework. I want and always wanted traditional non-homing torpedoes on submarines. The radical change is not to move back from homing torpedoes to non-homing torpedoes. The radical rework was to try out homing torpedoes in the first place. All I am arguing is to undo this unnecessary step. It's not radical to reject a radical change. What disappoints me is how we arrived at this stage of homing torpedoes. Wargaming has reassured us they would be extremely cautious and sensitive about the introduction of submarines. They told us they would take extra long time and test a lot and - have a laugh - the tests would be open-ended. But in this long period of testing no extra feedback was collected. I can't remember any discussions going on. I can't remember an open dialogue or qualitative survey. If anybody at Wargaming had ever asked the question in this forum "Do you think homing torpedoes are what makes submarines enjoyable/a good addition?", the loud and clear answer from the community would have been a firm "No." What's the point of taking extra time to tailor something to the needs of the game, if you don't get feedback on the core design? What's the use of asking players how happy they are with submarines on a scale of 0 to 10? How can you possibly extract detailed feedback from that? So the question can never be what the problem would be with balancing a radical change, but why such a radical change as homing torpedoes should be necessary and what would be the problem with balancing the class before thinking of such radical changes. I'm sure all players can have the usual impact on the game with normal torpedoes, tweaked to the play style. The statement that "submarines are perfectly fun for the players that want to play submarines" is, by logic, wrong. You assume that (a) everybody who is criticising subs is against any form or shape of submarine in the game and that (b) those who want to play them, by impliciation are fine with their current state. As I said, I am not against submarines per se. So I feel excluded by your statement.I liked the submarines in the Halloween event. It was fun and it had unguided torpedoes. I am willing to play any class that promotes the core strength of this game, which is a good simulation of the physics of naval battle, and the interaction between players, which is not driven by who has the best reflexes, like in other shooters, but by a way of thinking yourself into the opponent and predicting your shots correctly. This is the strength and, as far as torpedoes are concerned, the challenge. We got automated secondary artillery. We got automated AA. Now we get homing torpedoes. At this point we are closer to change main guns to auto-aim than we are to get the three aforementioned weapons into an intellectually challenging mode of operation. WoWs is getting ever closer to become a casual Micky Mouse mobile game and that is imo what drives players away. I gotta jump back and forth a bit, so please bear with me: You allege that the people who criticize submarines are - how did you put it? - intellectually dishonest. I will be a very nice guy and not take this personal. Otherwise I would feel inclined to violate the forum rules on profanities. I'm completely honest, which is why I've declared repeatedly that I would be willing to play submarines myself and tolerate them as opponents, if they wouldn't use homing torpedoes. Such a statement would not serve any hidden agenda to keep subs away. Now I'm coming back to the first part of your post. You accuse us of delaying subs. The irony is that in fact we would have got submarines earlier into the game, if Wargaming had not designed such a new way of torpedo attack. They would still have needed to balance diving capacity and design the underwater world. Tho, the underwater world could be very rudimentary and be refined once they actually got the subs right. But subs would be closer to an acceptable release than they are now, if the communication with the community would have been bilateral. Also, I think we, the people giving critical feedback are a link to the players that Wargaming loses or already lost on submarines. We are willing to give specific feedback rather than a flat "no". I specifically asked a friend, what about the design of subs he opposes and in what form he would accept them to the point of not leaving the game. We are basically doing Wargamings homework. We are telling Wargaming how to design submarines in a way that does not make people leave, maybe in a way that even makes them enjoy subs. You see with less binary thinking and a bit more openness, nobody has to leave, but a compromise can be found.

All surface ships have different ammo types. So submarines can have different torps: (a) torps with a long arming distance for long range; fast heavy hitters, maybe with a deepwater property, and (b) torps for close defence with a short arming distance and either lower damage or preferably slower speed. There is no flaw in my theory, even less so a huge flaw and even less so a HUGE flaw. No childish emoji will change that. Isn't that a pretty arrogant thing to say? This topic is not created by some player. The creator is a Wargaming employee. If anything, he might be biased towards suggesting submarines, in their current state, are a fine addition to the game. But we happily give him the benefit of a doubt and say this topic is neutral. So it does not attract any opinion in particular. We are not talking about some nazi forum, where only nazis are members and confirm each other in their ideas. This forum is neutral. The people who find their way into this topic are all the people who have anything to say about "Submarines in Random Battles", as the topic specifies. Where is the mass of people who are happy with submarines? Why are they not posting how content they are with this addition here, in this neutral feedback topic? You did. It was important to you, even so important, that you are hardly doing anything else. You're even hardly playing the game anymore cause you spend so much time making it your personal crusade to preemptively dismiss any post here critical to submarines. And still there are hardly any people who back your ideas, hardly a positive reaction to your posts, lots of negative reactions, lots of people who find their way here, just to say they don't like how subs work right now or even subs at all and finally lots of positive reactions to their posts (apart from the one flat downvote from you). I mean if I made a topic about "how much would you enjoy a paper cut on your nipple?" and all people agree there are better things in life, that's not an echo chamber. If most people agree something is manure, it likely is manure and the people are not in an echo chamber. In fact the person who maintains it's chocolate, against a majority, is well advised to question whether he/she/* may be in an echo chamber. I appreciate you've moved on to posting meme pics of dead people to try and gain a sentiment of expertise, but it just doesn't work, does it?

I don't ignore your point. So far you have never made that point you just made. You have argued about subs being balanced and belonging into the game and whatnot. The point that you find homing torpedoes to be the key property that makes submarines fun for you, has never been brought up so far. Then there is nothing more to be said. You like the homing, which I find ridiculous and a noob mechanic. I like the complexity of unguided torpedoes, which you fail to have an impact on your battles with. So there is a difference in opinion that cannot be solved. I want a complex game and you want an arcade hubba-bubba shooter. So what? I increase the damage and I even increase the speed, so they reach their distant target faster. This makes torping at longer range equal to torping at closer range, cause all that matters is how much time passes between firing the torp and the torp hitting. A fast torpedo leaves less time for the target to find a reason to change its course, ergo the torpedo hits with a higher probability. Problem solved. All in all I find the way of this discussion quite annoying. You have turned this official feedback thread, whose purpose it is for everyone to leave their ideas and opinions, into your private discussion. It's not appropriate to claim every second post in this topic and dump your comment on every single opinion everybody else posts. You aren't moderating this topic, but suffocating it, for the purpose of supressing every opinion you don't like. You are not the sole person of interest. Maybe leave some room for people to share their feedback. Write less and read more. Reading educates. If you want to discuss something specifically you can always create your own speshul topic.

1a. Dating back to late WW2. T6 represents the era shortly after WW1, containing such ships as the SMS Bayern which happened to just miss out on the Battle of Jutland. T8 ships were built in the late 30s and represent early WW2 technology. Homing torpedoes could historically correct appear only at T9 and T10. 1b. Homing torpedoes were not produced in large numbers. In case of the german "Zaunkönig", because the technology was already suffering under the shortages of the war economy and most of all, because war ships were already outfitted with countermeasures and merchant ships were generally unaware of the threat and sailing in a straight line at 10-15kts, which didn't require homing to hit. 2. Submarines with non-homing torpedoes stand the same chance of hitting a target as any other ship using torpedoes. Sad news: It requires skill, something the commander of your ships is missing. Given skill, a hit is only a matter of buffing the properties of the torpedo to a level where the damage distribution is in line with that of other ships. As I have written. A submarine torp spread with 90kts, 30k dmg per torp and 30s reload would be a darn OP weapon. I'm not saying this would be a realistic parameter setting. I am in fact wildly exaggerating to make the argument so obvious that even you can understand it. It's an argument as simple as that. If I can provide an unguided torpedo that can be as OP as the above mentioned example, I can iterate my way to a working configuration and homing is not needed. Homing torpedoes can by design only appeal to the lowest level of intelligence and don't belong into a still somewhat smart shooter as WoWs. 3. Apparently you were not in early testing, cause I saw lots of unguided torpedoes hit submarines. It however requires aiming, which again requires skill, which again you don't seem to have, which is why you're so adamantly defending your new toy. 4. Again you defend the one property of your new toy that makes the difference between skill and no skill. Wouldn't you rather like to have an unguided torp that does a multitude of the damage compared to your homing torpedo? I wonder why? Maybe cause you're unable to predict the movement of your targets and need some stabiliser to replace thinking for you? 5. You have not said a single thing to my points (b) and (c), cause you have no point to make. Since you don't want to discuss but only be right, you chose to ignore what you knew you could not challenge. 6. Your Notser video is a joke. It literally says "Counterplay is pressing R if the torpedoes can hit you. If DCP is on cooldown there is no counterplay and you're screwed". Again DCP cooldown is balanced over 6 years to counter fires, flooding and hits on rudder/engine/guns. It is overburdened taking the role of a once in a min counter measure on top of that.

RB is for late game. It makes sense to slow down progress for veterans. Just as a T9 ship takes longer to grind than anything below, a ship rewarding a regrind is a late game thing and correctly takes longer to acquire. It's okay to have somewhat exclusive ships that are more expensive, as long as you don't neglect other ressources. Funnily enough, just today it occured to me, why we have so many ships released for coal. If you want to sell coal in auctions at a high price, you need to create demand for coal. You only get demand, if there is at least one coal ship for everyone left to buy.

Suits me, let's get things straight: a) I never said I'm against submarines. I am against the pings and the homing torpedoes, which turn WoWs into a Mickey Mouse game. WG put a lot of effort into replicating armor schemes and modelling artillery physics. That is a major selling point of this game. And now they put in a mechanic that requires little skill. I liked submarines as they were in the Halloween event. Give them good torps and a reasonable reload and every player has a fair chance to succeed in this class. The game has so many levers to balance a class, that rewritting history is (i) unnecessary and (ii) embarrassing for a developer if he can't balance with the existing tools. You can balance torpedoes with speed, damage, detection, range, the deepwater property, reload and size of the spread. A sub dumping 6 torps with 90 kts and 30k damage every 30s would be OP as hell. So there is no justification of making the homing torps. I have been torping for years and I appreciate the complexity of predicting the actions of my targets. Every torpedo is a best guess based on physical, game-dynamic and even psychological assumptions. This is what makes torping rewarding. Homing torps take everything away that is exciting and rewarding about torp attacks. b) I could see myself enjoying submarines under the condition discussed in (a). But I'm a social person. I enjoy the company of the people I met in this game over years. I rate their company higher than any ship in the game. A ship class that makes people leave that I like, is imo not worth having. So, tho I am not against submarines in every shape or form, I'm against them, if it hurts the community. Do you know what community is? You haven't been in the forum before. Your clan tag says "only for oil & clan bonus". Doesn't sound like much of a community to me. So maybe that is why you see people as expendable. c) WGs profits are not of primary concern to me. But a good economy that does not create bubbles or create animosity is key to a healthy game. I want my game to endure. Also I am talking money, cause that is the language that WG speaks. What makes a good game or is historically accurate or socially acceptable, is not driving WGs decisions. I'm sure they would if WG would not create artificial popularity by designing them OP, and baiting players with missions requiring you to play submarines. It's the same with CVs. Before the CV-rework there were 2 CV-lines in 3 years, after the rework they released 3 lines. 1 out of 4 ship-specific missions is for the CV class, while only 1 in 20 battles is played in a CV. If that is not bias intended to push the player base into playing an unpopular class, I don't know what it is.

No need to explain, cause it's irrelevant. Nobody is judging people based on their spendings. It doesn't change the fact that they are not spending. And the sole reason to introduce submarines is to increase sales. If you want subs, but don't buy them and other people like buying ships, but don't like subs maybe to the point of leaving, how does that help sales? The argument is invalid. Yes, WG will always need F2P-players. They are however not key to the introduction of submarines, unless F2P-players would show a disproportionate high interest in submarines and stop playing if submarines are not in the game. Also WoWs has not struggled to find such players for 6 years. It's likely quite the contrary, that the predominant buyers of submarines will be whales, trying to complete their collections. So your personal love for subs will not be a factor in the decision process. WG thinks they can compensate the revenue of 5% of the players leaving with selling submarines to the remaining 95%. But the numbers won't add up. And if we consider the portion of people who will be selling their accounts, denying income from fresh players to WG and the image loss with the customers who don't leave but stop spending, which is almost as bad as leaving, that decision doesn't make sense to me.