I don't get the dev blog (CC) outrage

[Imsali]

First things first: WG absolutely deserved criticism on a number of things. Myself, I often complain on RNG, matchmaking, I hate the commander rework* and I miss the secondary builds. Also very much dislike the powercreep and I 'fondly' remember the Puerto Rico too. *I miss RPF on Georgia and in general I played much less since the rework.

 

But to be honest, I don't get the outrage on the latest changes, especially on the (former) CC side. Yes, I know CCs bread and butter to feed discontent, but even by those standards Flamu went beyond that (and otherwise I love his videos!) while Flambass produced yet another borderline ridiculous video - even though he still managed to comment on KOTS matches.

 

Regarding submarines, at this point everyone knows that gameplay decisions trump realism in an arcade game, so I am absolutely fine with battery being a finite source that will make endgame so much better vs subs. There is a very good reason to avoid an ability to make them hide behind islands for minutes at the endgame to charge batteries and then ambush surface ships while nothing happens in between. WG's decisions to make subs glorified torp DDs is spot-on and a very good call.

Labelling ranked as competitive mode is quite a stretch, I think it is rather an extended grind mode and for testing subs it fits perfectly.

 

I think balance changes are a step in the right direction as well, and at this point I have nothing to complain about on the super BBs (at last I think it will give purpose to my Shikishima) or the Dutch line. Deadeye removal is also something I agree with - not the outright skill because I think it is a great addition, but rather because of the behaviour it encourages.

 

TLDR: WG has sparked outrage before for good reasons. The last dev blog is not one of them, IMHO actually quite the opposite.

 

[SodaBubbles]

Since they are ramming subs down our throat without asking the population if it wants them, testing them in Ranked is a good compromise. I imagine that they do not want to repeat the stupidity of the first months of the idiotic CV rework, in which Randoms was a testing ground, and yet no compensation was ever offered for using the players that way. I imagine complaints would be loud and nasty if they tested subs in Randoms.

 

It will also be a good experience for all of us, since we can decide whether we want to continue playing the game after submarines arrive, and can enjoy a nice twilight of Randoms before the game is unalterably changed. 

[ColonelPete]

29 minutes ago, optimal_909 said:

Regarding submarines, at this point everyone knows that gameplay decisions trump realism in an arcade game, so I am absolutely fine with battery being a finite source that will make endgame so much better vs subs. There is a very good reason to avoid an ability to make them hide behind islands for minutes at the endgame to charge batteries and then ambush surface ships while nothing happens in between. WG's decisions to make subs glorified torp DDs is spot-on and a very good call.

The criticism is less about batteries, but more about subs themselves.

 

As you noted yourself, subs will poach the DD job. As a DD player I am not happy about that.

[MementoMori_6030]

Subs will probably be pretty useless beyond: "Ah, I can see the pretty underwater map model for a couple of minutes."

[RenamedUser_92906789]

18 hours ago, optimal_909 said:

First things first: WG absolutely deserved criticism on a number of things. Myself, I often complain on RNG, matchmaking, I hate the commander rework* and I miss the secondary builds. Also very much dislike the powercreep and I 'fondly' remember the Puerto Rico too. *I miss RPF on Georgia and in general I played much less since the rework.

 

But to be honest, I don't get the outrage on the latest changes, especially on the (former) CC side. Yes, I know CCs bread and butter to feed discontent, but even by those standards Flamu went beyond that (and otherwise I love his videos!) while Flambass produced yet another borderline ridiculous video - even though he still managed to comment on KOTS matches.

 

Regarding submarines, at this point everyone knows that gameplay decisions trump realism in an arcade game, so I am absolutely fine with battery being a finite source that will make endgame so much better vs subs. There is a very good reason to avoid an ability to make them hide behind islands for minutes at the endgame to charge batteries and then ambush surface ships while nothing happens in between. WG's decisions to make subs glorified torp DDs is spot-on and a very good call.

Labelling ranked as competitive mode is quite a stretch, I think it is rather an extended grind mode and for testing subs it fits perfectly.

 

I think balance changes are a step in the right direction as well, and at this point I have nothing to complain about on the super BBs (at last I think it will give purpose to my Shikishima) or the Dutch line. Deadeye removal is also something I agree with - not the outright skill because I think it is a great addition, but rather because of the behaviour it encourages.

 

TLDR: WG has sparked outrage before for good reasons. The last dev blog is not one of them, IMHO actually quite the opposite.

 

 

WG knows from the start that subs will not fit well into the game, yet they gave in because so many potatoes (mostly the ones who dont even understand current game mechanics) demanded them on facebook, youtube and live wg streams.

 

Now we have a 3 year development in subs and the result is some abomination that will either be boring and frustrating to play or play against.

 

Criticism is well justified .. either be that from CCs or from forumites (you would notice that 99% people on forums oppose subs, just like they opposed cvs), yet ignored completely by wg staff.

 

I could not care less what they do to subs ... but mark my word ... they will bring nothing positive to the game. I am sure about that.

 

EDIT:

Here is a short clip from venom (when he sill played wows) that sums up the situation pretty good.

 

https://youtu.be/USkBpZVENH4

 

 

[Asatori]

tbh if batteries on a sub are finite, then why aren't planes for a CV? 

 

[Kartoffelmos]

1 hour ago, optimal_909 said:

WG's decisions to make subs glorified torp DDs is spot-on and a very good call.

1 hour ago, optimal_909 said:

make endgame so much better vs subs.

 

Not really, since the go-to tactic will be to remain undetected at all times, possibly staying unsubmerged at maximum range. Even if that is not true, the removal of hydrophones means that they no longer have any hard counters (apart from CVs but WG for some reason think that CVs are vulnerable to submarines despite the opposite being true) so they are less dependent on submerging to begin with.

 

Testing it out in ranked is also a poor idea since it will artificially force people to play them (if submarines perform too well) thus any argument WG will make regarding the popularity of the class will be flawed by default. Having the meta reduced to subs, CVs and destroyers (or whatever the best counter will be) doesn't sound all that enjoyable either.

 

1 hour ago, optimal_909 said:

I have nothing to complain about on the super BBs

 

First of all, they will push cruisers further down the food chain which, given the popularity of regular battleships, is not a good thing. Secondly, I assume they will (if included in the regular modes) have the same limitations as carriers which will lead to the same issues as carriers when it comes to skill gap and performance. If they use the same MM spots as battleships, I guess WG will adjust fire and flooding damage to make them remotely balanced. If not, there is little point in playing a normal battleship and even less point in playing overmatch-BBs like Yamato.

 

1 hour ago, optimal_909 said:

Deadeye removal is also something I agree with - not the outright skill because I think it is a great addition, but rather because of the behaviour it encourages.

 

Eh, the negative behaviour is caused by the skill being poorly designed so I'm not sure how the skill can be great while the behaviour it encourages is bad. I'm glad to see it go, but it took WG far too much time to come to that conclusion. Not to mention, the effects it would have on the game was really predictable to begin with.

 

18 minutes ago, Asatori said:

tbh if batteries on a sub are finite, then why aren't planes for a CV? 

 

Because one has a multiple countermeasures (well, depending on how they have implemented the torpedoes in the latest iteration) and is closer to "regular ships" (both literally and figuratively) while the other need to be as foolproof as possible to diminish the skill gap between CV-players (which in turn is a neccessity because of the popularity/performance issues of the class).

[159Hunter]

About testing in ranked, 7 vs 7 is different from 12 vs 12. As in, very different.

- CVs are pretty rare in ranked;

- CA even less popular than in randoms;

- no +2/-2 MM;

- less players on the same map: more freedom to move around;

- weird 3 cap layout leading to one kiting flank and one cap to contest;

- ...

 

People are already annoyed by potatoes and starsaving. Now they'll add an untested class for testing purposes. I can see how this will improve the quality of ranked games...

[HystericalAccuracy]

2 hours ago, optimal_909 said:

so I am absolutely fine with battery being a finite source that will make endgame so much better vs subs.

Finite planes would be nice too.

 

 

1 hour ago, nambr9 said:

WG knows from the start that subs will not fit well into the game, yet they gave in because so many potatoes (mostly the ones who dont even understand current game mechanics) demanded them on facebook, youtube and live wg streams.

Right. I see so many times in twitch-chat "SUBS WHEN??????" - later in another post the same guy writes "yesterday I got my first t5 "

 

And WG be like "new player wants subs, we sell him subs" 

(at least that´s my impression)

 

 

Analogy: Costa Concordia wasn´t a bad ship, nor were most of its crew-members bad people. But the arrogance of one man in charge brought the downfall of the mighty vessel. Reminds me painfully of WGs course.

[paulysan]

52 minutes ago, Asatori said:

tbh if batteries on a sub are finite, then why aren't planes for a CV? 

 

The same reason that DD's have an unlimited supply of torpedo's in battle........it's an arcade shoot-em up game and not a simulation or based on reality.

 

[Animalul2012]

Subs are worse destroyers. Sure they might get better detection but way worse survivability,maneuverability and armament, oh and destroyers hard counter them. They will be food for my z-46.

[Yedwy]

1 hour ago, nambr9 said:

 

WG knows from the start that subs will not fit well into the game, yet they gave in because so many potatoes (mostly the ones who dont even understand current game mechanics) demanded them on facebook, youtube and live wg streams.

 

Now we have a 3 year development in subs and the result is some abomination that will either be boring and frustrating to play or play against.

 

Criticism is well justified .. either be that from CCs or from forumites (you would notice that 99% people on forums oppose subs, just like they opposed cvs), yet ignored completely by wg staff.

 

I could not care less what they do to subs ... but mark my word ... they will bring nothing positive to the game. I am sure about that.

This

[22cm]

2 hours ago, optimal_909 said:

But to be honest, I don't get the outrage on the latest changes, especially on the (former) CC side.

But I do.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

6 minutes ago, 22cm said:

But I do.

I do to. I have sub zero faith in WG releasing something that will make the game better and more interesting without throwing a giant wrench in everything else, based on how poorly they performed the last 2 years. Except for their fom techniques and gambling ofc. Those will be on par.

[22cm]

32 minutes ago, paulysan said:

The same reason that DD's have an unlimited supply of torpedo's in battle........it's an arcade shoot-em up game and not a simulation or based on reality.

 

You are not very smart... The planes to a CV are what the torpedo tubes are for a DD, because carriers also have unlimited supply of torpedoes on board.

 

But torpedoe tubes can be completely damaged and a DD can permanently lose them, while new planes are build on board the CV.

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 1 Stunde, Asatori sagte:

tbh if batteries on a sub are finite, then why aren't planes for a CV? 

Do you expect the average CV customer to be able to understand and monitor the complex mechanic of a limited resource? Pretty sure they are already struggling to cope with their credit card limits.

[22cm]

6 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Except for their fom techniques and gambling ofc. Those will be on par.

Not even that. They got caught rigging the Santa craetes last year. Remember the Makarov?

[Tanaka_15]

2 hours ago, optimal_909 said:

TLDR: WG has sparked outrage before for good reasons. The last dev blog is not one of them, IMHO actually quite the opposite.

Short answer you are wrong.

 

Long answer, subs are bad for various reasons, but this will be boroing gameplay in place of normal ship you will get inisible long range camping sort of dd.

 

Superbbs, is terrible idea. We have problem with overpopulation of bbs and crusers geting close to extintctiuon. What is WG solution? more bigger [edited] theoretical bbs. (BTW i still wand my super_mega_ultra_thunderer with 20 guns!!!!!!).

 

Nerf to CV is ofc good thing but to little to late. 

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 1 Minute, 22cm sagte:

You are not very smart... The planes to a CV are what the torpedo tubes are for a DD, because carriers also have unlimited supply of torpedoes on board.

I'd rather see limited fuel implemented. THIS would at least remove nonstop surveillance flights, like those planes had the endurance of the U-2.

[totally_potato]

2 hours ago, optimal_909 said:

First things first: WG absolutely deserved criticism on a number of things. Myself, I often complain on RNG, matchmaking, I hate the commander rework* and I miss the secondary builds. Also very much dislike the powercreep and I 'fondly' remember the Puerto Rico too. *I miss RPF on Georgia and in general I played much less since the rework.

 

But to be honest, I don't get the outrage on the latest changes, especially on the (former) CC side. Yes, I know CCs bread and butter to feed discontent, but even by those standards Flamu went beyond that (and otherwise I love his videos!) while Flambass produced yet another borderline ridiculous video - even though he still managed to comment on KOTS matches.

 

Regarding submarines, at this point everyone knows that gameplay decisions trump realism in an arcade game, so I am absolutely fine with battery being a finite source that will make endgame so much better vs subs. There is a very good reason to avoid an ability to make them hide behind islands for minutes at the endgame to charge batteries and then ambush surface ships while nothing happens in between. WG's decisions to make subs glorified torp DDs is spot-on and a very good call.

Labelling ranked as competitive mode is quite a stretch, I think it is rather an extended grind mode and for testing subs it fits perfectly.

 

I think balance changes are a step in the right direction as well, and at this point I have nothing to complain about on the super BBs (at last I think it will give purpose to my Shikishima) or the Dutch line. Deadeye removal is also something I agree with - not the outright skill because I think it is a great addition, but rather because of the behaviour it encourages.

 

TLDR: WG has sparked outrage before for good reasons. The last dev blog is not one of them, IMHO actually quite the opposite.

 

its your opinion

IMO the subs part is actually a little bad if you think about it. Limiting battery time will make Subs surface more often, and that will lead to camping till late game which will be boring

The underwater world and relative detection mechanic for subs is good.

But then adding new skills for countering subs is actually more complicated for many reasons. That's coz, you already have to focus on getting as many skills that benefits your ship, for eg. on BBs its survival skills, on DDs it torp, gun or JoAT skills, on cruisers its all kinds of skills based on our perks, and on CVs its already quite complicated. Then adding sub skills on top will make us sacrifice some skills to counter them since we have to counter them.

So I would suggest them to increase the no. of skills points to 25 to include atleast one more maximum sub counter skill point or two of lower points. Then its fine, otherwise, its just gonna be a very weird change.

Putting them in Ranked is like shoving a glass of wine down a 5 year old's throat when they want Thumbs Up. If they made these changes interesting, then they never would have to put them in ranked. Some players don't even play randoms anymore so again, bad change

Balance changes are alright. Still am baffled by Leander and Stalin nerf but whatever.

Druid is a bit overnerfed.

[geschlittert]

52 minutes ago, paulysan said:

The same reason that DD's have an unlimited supply of torpedo's in battle........it's an arcade shoot-em up game and not a simulation or based on reality.

 

You are comparing apples with mushrooms. Weapons systems, such as torp launchers , guns, AA and secondary mounts can be permamently destroyed, while the weapon system of a CV - the planes - will replenish itself over time

[totally_potato]

1 hour ago, Kartoffelmos said:

Eh, the negative behaviour is caused by the skill being poorly designed so I'm not sure how the skill can be great while the behaviour it encourages is bad. I'm glad to see it go, but it took WG far too much time to come to that conclusion. Not to mention, the effects it would have on the game was really predictable to begin with.

there were so many ways to fix Dead Eye

Just remove the condition and add a small penalty like turret traverse. Maybe even reduce the bonus to 7% or 5%. That's it. It would be a good skill for all kinds of BBs, good for brawlers as it would help them consistently hit targets at close range, help snipers as its a flat bonus, and mid range BBs also benefit from this.

But WG overcomplicates things or just isn't in their right mind so that would never happen

[lameoll]

2 hours ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

Subs will probably be pretty useless beyond: "Ah, I can see the pretty underwater map model for a couple of minutes."

i just hope ppl will play them for a couple of weeks then get bored with them and leave them all together 

 

especialy in ranked i dont want to see this crap 

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 6 Minuten, lameoll sagte:

especialy in ranked i dont want to see this crap 

For what I have seen in Ranked, it can't get any worse. I wasn't there for ranks, only for the 12-victory-bakshish, but still it was a torturous crapshow.

[lameoll]

4 minutes ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

For what I have seen in Ranked, it can't get any worse. I wasn't there for ranks, only for the 12-victory-bakshish, but still it was a torturous crapshow.

oh it can .. most dd players cant even handle spotting already because their too scared and when they sneeze they explode.

imagin adding subs to that so they have another high priority task.