admiraldelorin

THAT is clear.. problem is the Cruisers, Destroyers, Aiircraftcariers and Submarines mostly seem to fight with only half a team.. the good thing is that goes usually for both sides in random :)

1) cruiser vs cruiser.. smoke and torps vs guns and radar yeah that'll work 2) skill ? 3) BAD is when they are prefered abov all other without execption, since when do naval officesr fresh from the acadamy get a capitol ship as their first cmmand .. just drop the "Warships" so the non BB players know they're being conned?

Ok so every cruise is ballanced by a cruiser on the opposition team. You only need to contribute more or better to your team. But you rather wait in que,or what is the issue here? You say you tried but it is not worth the pain. So all WG has to do is cause more pain for BB's and you will start playing cruisers then OR alternativly cause less pain for cruisers? I suggest to do that incremently the more BB in que the bigger the pain or alternatively the the higher the gain for the out numbered classes. You still want to play BB's? Fine but pointwise and in ingame currencies, you should be out classed left and right. BTW i meet enough BB's players complaining that they are going bankrupt... something I never hear from DD players.. food for thought? Oh and you can use your earnings with a DD very well to buy and sail the latest and greatest BB..

Yup . Way too many Destroyers and Submarines in World of Warships Battleships European server Sunday Jan 9th 15:45 UTC +1 (CET) till 21:48 URC +1 Hillarious C/m XP/m for BB's must be really low with those waiting times. So what are these players doing? Playing for WR in a mode made for grinding.... LoL

Subs should have a snorkel, be able to run the diesel at periscope depth, with higher speed then surface speed. Subs should be freely available..at a cost below DD and should have higher eficiency than DD. Subs should be spawned way ahead of DD's and in a World of Warships Submarines should probably be more plentyful then BB's.. All test data so far is just biased because of imposed limits. Skills on subs can't be developed, so their stats are lower than what they will be when players gain experience. The debate is just a shouting match for naysayers and whiners.. when there have been subs in a battle they are in equal numbers on both sides..seldom more than 2 (vs 4-5 capital ships) and then only in single digit % of the battles, the whole rancour is just pathetic.

LoL come back when its 6 CV's and they're ALL on the opposing team... ha ha ha

popularity noun the fact that something or someone is liked, enjoyed, or supported by many people. The popularity stats are what they are, but as long as availabillty is not general and free, how can you call what actually only are appearances, popularity? 30 + % for BB, CA and DD vs single digits for CV and subs. That is what you dictate through match making and what is called "balance"..through creating missions and rewards systems. All in all it is not a measure of popularity. I guess it's a very, very long way still, from "Battleship" to a "World of Warships" .. unlesss the latter is only a gimmick. Does the development of the numebr of BB's in que correlate with development of the number of online players? I only see snapshots of course, but if the 19:00 UTC timeframe on the EU server is a thing to go by.. we noticed steep increase in BB's in que for random battles. 250 : 1 for BB vs sub or cv is no exception... THAT I would call a great in-balance in a "World of Warships", especially for WW II and post WW II tiers one would expect the opposite, no matter the "paper" state of the fleets. The "Arcade" argument fails when players invest to get beautifully crafted virtual replica's. All in all the notion of "popularity" should be used more carefully. Before you know it, sailing around maps in training mode may become very polular... allas there too limited to 3 Cv's and no AI submarines (yet)

2 con posts and 3 reactions in 3 weeks.. all good then .. 3 weeks in subs are too spare in random, hardly get a chance to fight one in random unless I play a sub.. and when they absolutely get swamped by ASW planes, the AI sub in coop are just not up to par.. all the while there are literally hundreds of BB's in que.. there are hardly any subs or CV's.. So hearing no complaints from BB players .. if that's the aim.. then your'all good. Unless it's only about collecting come experimental data .. seems something went (unintentially) foul though..

1. Individuals must be able to keep their data PRIVATE by LAW you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to information about what any individual does and does not do or when or how much time and money any individual spents. Get over it, get a life !! (BTW this is not a psychop) 2. Stats are just stats, and no matter how high your score is, you realy arre allowed to think that the game and it mechanics are the best ever. (seriously) I for one refuse to play that way.. to bad for you. Get over it, get a life!

You seem to fail to grasp that for every LOOSER there is a WINNER .. but i regress. there are regularly 100 BBS in que for every 10 DD every 2 CV and every 2 submarinse so 100 can 't handle it ? Is that what you are saying the LOOSERS hate submarines .... ha ha so your whole argument is just about sorry loosers .. ... well thanks for clearing that up :)

Yes so a sub group of a sub group does not like subs. Oh and a sub group of that sub group is no longer playing.. and still resources are poured into the further development.. WG must be very unsuccessfull.. wait that does not add up. Ah.. right WG is very succesfull .. you are right in one thing though complaining is always louder than the praise.. I keep repeating my self BUT you cannot argue against the numbers.. i'm sure revenue streams are well guarded.. even when the whole leisure market is upended at the moment i'm sure that continuity is the priority, not what is communictaed by a sub group of the playerbase. And there is more.. you can't invest less then 0 in subs but those that want subs can spend more and more resources... as they say you are on a downward track. So its all only about your personal experience in the game that suffers and you do not "like" so no one can have it.. al you have to do is not to enter any game that can have a sub in it or leave right away.. just like i can avoid any game that can't have them. Again in the end the numbers wil decide, only differnce is that i wil not go on a tirade to get what i want but will happily rebuke anyone that tries.

500 players can only be represetantive IF the demograpics correlate. Your "could" just means that. Any group could, including the 1000 of which all 100% WANT submarines. A "good number" is not a "fact", sorry. "far more players"... ? most never get to the forum , let alone post. I would hope that Wargaming is imune to "Tabloid" and "fake news" arguments.. Yelling does not make an argument.... "In the end we all know that Wargaming will ignore any negative feedback, and keep pushing subs into the game, no matter how much they will destroy the player experience." Are you saying that they have been very successful becasue they ignored negative feedback? If that contributed to their success sofar, I would suggest they just keep doing what they have been doing then. "Trust me when I say that if subs stay in the game, the number of players playing will go down." I don't trust fake arguments .. or dramatized opinionated arguments. In the end I hope Wargming will ignore any and all fake argument and does what serves continuity for them most.

That is obvious. You claim 500 players are representative for the player base, yet you have no acces to such data (the WG user base) so litteraly can not know, and bassically by law are not allowed to know. (beyond what WG is allowed to let you use through the EULA) So any argument based on that "survey" is as valid as the survey, NO value at all except that of the 500 or respondants some 20% did not agree with you ? Lets put some perspective on things.. 500 is about 3 % of 15.000, the players on line at one single moment on european server some afternoon.. That play the game as it is.. those 15.000 like it enough to spend the leisure time, valued higher then their working hours (school hours, for supervised under age players) . Let me set that at a value of 1 US $ per minute.. that's easily ends up millions of US$ per day. Mind you that the actual revenue that WG makes is a drop in an ocean vs the value (in time) players spend. The wiser simlpy do not spend their time doing your survey , or reading through forums full of nonsense. So the others care enough to spend millions yet not enough to do your survey.. If submarines are such a bad idea it would become clear much faster, when you support their developent and addition in the game.. if no one plays them then you are absoltuly right.. When you do not support their addition then you are afraid you are wong.. or you already know you are wrong but are just trolling and bashing to see if you can get your way anyway..... good luck with that.. Maybe you underdstand why as you say this " this utter contempt for the player base." happens.... exept it is not "utter contempt" it's just the mumbers .... sorry.

Still wating for a ( slightly) convincing argument that the sample is representative of the player base.. Your loss is my (our) gain.. :) I am sure the numbers will speak for them selves.. no matter the vitriol spewed here.. Why is limiting sub nrs necceesary? Because too many players want them ? When you are right surely somebody wil develop a battleship only game where you can go play and it wil be a tremendous result. So basically you should support anything that furthers that cause.... I would thank you for it.

You quote a sinlge graph out of context.. at least have the decency to name a source..

What is WG doing to prevent a couple of thousand, loud mouthed players that relentlessy take over the narrative, from chasing away the silent majority.. ? Where will the CV players go..? Where will all the tacticians go after you turn every battle into a lottery because there is no feasible way to recon the opposition? 2 CV are too many? When i play the DD and both sides have 3 CV's how is that ging to influence the outcome for me..how do i make my sides 3 cv's better then the opppositins 3 cv's? .. since when is World of Warhships not a zero sum game? What is it with game ballance where you try to force a square peg in a round hole.? There is no law in nature where you can have unequal forces apply the same force.. If BB were not what they are the Nazi's and Japan would rule the world today.. they lost.. BB's should be the least efficient ships too expensive and too vulnerable.. you could also rename the game (back) to "Battleship" ? I'll just watch the numbers.. PS: did you alo notice that NOBODY reads the EULA .. where it clearly says that under 18's must be supervised by adults.. maybe applly that to the forum and social media too?

407 comments, nothing to see moving along..

Desmo with "just" radar and hydro is doing great, Republique kills more subs then with secondaries then air attack, and occasional long shot with the main. Subs vs sub kills work fine. just need to skill captains. In coop targets are gone to fast to say anything usefull. Iowa is fast enough to close in before torps are armed or sub can come to surface, can sit on top of a sub and kill it with secondaries just fine.

After careful consideration, reading the license, research past behaviour and cost asessement we decided we would try WOWS as a naval combat, shooter.. What we found agreed with our expectations, so investments were made in full acceptance that premium ships like Missouri could change over night aka. we consider WOWS stable for one month so the investment is only to be for a month. LetÄs say 4 gaming nights at 3 hrs each per month. A complete write off of 100 , - € comparible with going to the movies twice that month. We stayed a bit longer and invested a bit more. what planet were you on? If you were promised no submarines..lawyer up a class action suite should be possible.. and show those lawyers the contract. Oh, and mind you we invested while we were made to believe submarines would be in the game one way or another, and we would politely ask a refund should this not happen. I suggest you do the same. It is obvious to us, WOWS is not a static game.. the = (zero) = 0.x.yyy version number actually is LOUD and clear.. Sorry if you invested in the wrong game. I would suggest you should have invested in Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts, still in development but there the end goal is that you end up with a static version., although there too functionality may be lost once the server is shut down. I would suggest that what you call "promisses" are actually more floating ideas that were never guaranteed in writing... Like submarines have been "promised" but still are not there, and my lawyer will be laughing all the way to the bank when i file a lawsuit.. Whether you or I can successfully reclaim our investment, I doubt as the defending lawyer will check entertainment value vs prospective alternatives. Without a proper court order my statistics can not be accessed without breach of privacy laws. What I do know is that if you are confrontal, your only option soon will be a lawsuit. I don't think they will respond to any "community" pressure seeing how toxic that community is. As I see it you can have your "Grand Battles" ? without submarines and CV's as i can have my joint force battles with no BB''s.. alas all ship classes and types in random is something you and I may have to accept. That will not hurt me. My desire and only reason why we (me and my friends) have WOWS is the chance of well coordinated, highly complex tactical game play in clan battles and in training mode. Don't care about random or ranked or coop or all the other "wild" modes. They are just tools to get more game currencies and a place for experiments. And no, divisions can carry battles easier, but nothing beats a well oiled dozen, as you may occasionally (1 in a 1000? ) witness in random when by change the right players are thrown in one team and the rest follows their lead.

You know all of this.. why are you still here.. why don't you make your own game? With all due respect I am getting pretty much what i expected and i find it as advertised.. including the toxic chat in any game mode not CB or training. and if no guided missile frigates what do you think is the ship class going to be introduced in lets say September 2027... And i am not a lawyer, but on my terms, by the legally binding documents I got what I payed for. What goes for DD, Subs and CV's goes even more for BB's. If realistic they would all have to stay in port.. swamped by flights of 70 - planes in each CV attack. killed by 2 torps from any DD.. and be lit up by a 10 : 1 ratio against CC 's so the joke is on the early adopters who for what ever phantom reason thought they were getting a MB (tm) Battleship derivative.. Should have looked at WOT before ever thinking that.. All I see is that any ship not to far out of the tier range can end up in the winning team in any random battle and might influence the outcome for 1/12th. As a BB player you should be glad that the submarine does not need to do that much damage to get on the score board, leaves more points on the table for you. "Realistic" and "Arcade" are fluent, an "Arcade" game in my world is found in some Arcade. Yes those still exist.. "Realistic" as in RL physically is impossible.. for various reasons not the least due to the flat screen and the speed of light. It's a game, pieces are modeled after real life (even if only existed on a a serviette in a Soviet design bureau) and the movement of pieces is a bit more complex then in chess. Get over it. If we are only 2 i'm sure the revenue stream will dry up, and the game will change.. but since i 'm paying for 2... good luck on that..

To all the naysayers... we're at version 0.10.7 Version 0 (zero)and even when it has been zero since 6 years, In my RL world that means still open to change, not finished. Also since 6 years there have been monthly updates, new ships, new game modes. Every new ship logically has to be better then the last, why else get it? You thought you were buying into a a static game where you can play the same game for years to come, really ? That is like thinking "free to play" is like "free beer". You will have noticed that you have to put in time or other resources, but not the continuous development and change? All you are saying is that you can't deal with it. In the end it is only your opinion, no more, no less. I am sure the owners are monitoring their revenue streams. If you don't like what you see, just walk like you talk. You do not like submarines.. that is fine, I don't like battle ships that shoot 30 km and miss half the time. You could have asked for a "no submarine" mode, but instead you want to deny all of us that understand submarines to be ships of war, just like WWI torpedo boats or 21 st century guided weapon command frigates with 2000 nautical mile radar range and ballistic intercept capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo From December 1941 to November 1943 the Mark 14 and the destroyer-launched Mark 15 torpedo had numerous technical problems that took almost two years to fix. https://militaryhistoryonline.com/WWII/MarkXIVTorpedo need more sources?

"When Update 0.10.8 goes live" == NOT in Public Test.

Please stop selling your desires and needs as fact, need or something supposedly objective. Seriously? Beta tester doing one coop game and then comment in public forum ? How about you first learn what it can and what it can not. And remember each sub is different, so there is no "subs". Want: Balao: It is really annoying following a CV for minutes pinging and launching torps hitting just 1 citadel and all, but the thing will not go down . 3 K + damage per hit so after 8 hits CV's not even half dead yet . I think I put 8 in not sure. And did mention a colleague was torping too but i did not keep track on his torps. So how about increasing penetration by let's say 33.33 % but have every 3rd torp be a dud. Read up on history, US torps were nothing to write home about.. but 6hits with 2 citadel sits better with me then 8 hits that make you go look for better targets..

Will ships like Friesland have Asrock aswell as depth charges?