Hugh_Ruka

Missions give 300 tokens ...

This is definitely not testing. I don't know what that will be but by WGs own admission, ships are balanced for 12v12 (argument why team size cannot change) so testing in 7v7 cannot yield usable data for anything relevant. Also testing in a "live" mode instead of a special mode (like Grand Battle f.e.) that differs from Randoms anyway and affects how people play the mode again skews the data. And changing parameters of tested ships across the board right before changing testing environment is not really clever. The basic rule of testing is that you want it to be as controlled as possible, changing one parameter at a time to be able to evaluate the change properly. This is not it ...

And not you look at the picture in the article with the camo examples and recall the Satan crates ... yeah that looks like a shortlist.

No, that's business as usual ...

That's not how that works. Consumer protection laws of the buyers jurisdiction applies.

So the article is finally there, and it looks like we have a shortlist scenario again: And as of time of writing this post, a "DIscuss on forums" link is absent from the article :-)))

You are aware that the OR is only in the part of WHAT can drop, it does not tell ANYTHING about the RULES when each drop can happen ? Same as the Santa crates. The drop list for Santa crates was not wrong, just the rules were not explained so surprises happened ....

Yeah that would be nice. In my country you cannot advertise a discount if the item was not on sale without the discount for some time before .... I am tempted to report this ....

Ok. the tooltip on the tokens in Armory says chain of combat missions and bundles: However an article on the main page explaining the event would be nice ....

When there's NO communication, you can't have an issue with it being incorrect :-)

Where did you find that info ?

any info on how to obtain those tokes ? there's nothing on the main website ...

That issue did not stop them to release a full German CV line ...

What was the majority mission for US, German, British or Japanese submarines ? Was it to take part in fleet actions ? No, their main missions were to work on supply shipping and to scout. Did they sink warships ? Of course, when the opportunity arose they took it. They'd be stupid not to. However, they were not after warships as their main objective. There are no supply/merchant convoys in this game (except Operations). So the main objective of submariners does not exist in the game. Simple as that. Compare that to the other surface classes that had much more varied objectives during the wars (from attacking enemy fleets to raiding supply convoys, shore bombardment, troop escort/delivery etc.).

Unfortunately there's no: Step 4: make it balanced Step 5: make it fun to play

Guess what, there are very rarely any acknowledgments from WG in that bug report thread about reported issues. And there are several complaints about the coop state in that exact thread you linked. There are even specific posts in Current update section. Again without ANY response.

So people not wanting subs to be added to coop because coop is unplayable since last patch because of bot pathing issues and they'd rather have the bots fixed first and THEN subs added is not constructive. Says a lot about the direction you were given. Ignore whatever is broken and just focus on the next new feature is not very confidence inspiring (oh god I butchered that sentence). You are just increasing the frustration of coop players as (maybe I have missed it) I have not seen any acknowledgment from WG about the bot issues from last patch. So the coop players are desperately trying to get attention where they can. Can you blame them for that ? I mean a simple pinned post in current update section about the issue being worked on would be enough.

yes, all those "niche" ones were not primarily combatants, their designed role was something different. after all each warship can fulfill the role of (submarine) after certain conditions are met ... see what I did there ? never played Steel Ocean, cannot say anything abut that. question is WHEN were submarines added to that game and how did the playerbase react ?

You don't KNOW what is deemed constructive by the developers because you have no interaction with them. You have no clue about future plans, architectural and design limitations of the game engine etc. You can only evaluate the text and if it is written in a specific manner. I can write pages of completely unconstructive feedback and you'll have no clue or no reason to remove the posts as trolling simply because it will look reasonable. I am sorry but your own actions in here are not constructive in any way other than removing the vulgar ones. Even you judgement of off-topic is clearly lacking just by how you treated the co-op related posts.

Their approach to feedback is the same as a pickaxe ... in through one ear out the other ...

You cannot have constructive feedback without a discussion. And that is something that is missing here. There is no discussion possible because nobody relevant form WG is ever answering on these forums. That's the main reason these forums look as they look. It's just us players discussing among ourselves. Even if something is deemed relevant or constructive by the Gods at WG we never find out. You can clearly see it when you go through many posters histories (myself included). They go from a learning phase to a "constructive feedback" phase to an either cynical, frustrated or negative feedback phase. Simply because there is no meaningful discussion to be had with WG. Basically you end up with trolls at the end anyway. So censoring the forums based on how "constructive" the feedback is does not make sense.

Well you can find a lot of different curiosities like Cruiser submarines (Surcouf) or Airplane carrier submarines (I400 class) or even cargo submarines but those were specialties that tried to push the designs into niche roles. Also note that the "Engaging Warships" is in brackets. The submarines were of course capable of doing that, they had anti-ship armament after all, but it was NOT their designed or primary role. They were only suitable for short engagements, hit and run basically. Yes at the end of things this is a game. However the game should be fun for all involved, not only the one commanding the chosen class. It is quite different to design a game around submarines (Silent Hunter) and trying to tack on submarines into something that was primarily designed with something different in mind. I am not saying it cannot be done, but at the current state and implementation of submarines in WoWs it's not it.

1. Nobody is talking about the historical capabilities or properties of the ships. But the main mechanics are based on historical and real world usage of said ships. Even CVs to an extent. Submarines were never used as main fleet combatants, they were simply not designed and built for those roles. That's the main problem. 2. We can try to show them the consequences their direction will have. The community was correct on many aspects of the previous similar introductions (we are not always correct of course). 3. They should have gone with something similar to Grand Battle from a patch ago. The stats don't count so people can go nuts as they wish, there's nothing at stake and they can implement a similar model to how the Super BBs were gated to not have everybody queue up only in subs. But no, they are trying to destroy the next most popular mode after Random battles. And the mode is still not a valid testing ground as it features REDUCED team sizes.

THANK YOU GOOD SIR !!!

yes, but no single face one goes up to 12 in arabic numerals. unfortunately I cannot find an authentic picture of an actual french one....