Soo.....damacon defeats pings.......

[Andrewbassg]

 

 

So....damacon defeat pings, right? Buut..... guess what class has 60 sec auto damacon :)?Yeah......

 Which also means that during that period they are also immune to...... flooding. They want subs in the game, just......khhm ...not everyone should be..... enjoying them....equally....

I can't believe the sheer amount of B*  Weegee is capable to pull in order to defend its pet class...

 

Btw..

 

 

•  

 

 

[invicta2012]

12 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

I can't believe the sheer amount of B*  Weegee is capable to pull in order to defend its pet class...

They haven't thought about it. This is just poor concept management. 

[MementoMori_6030]

Being radared drains battery power... World of Bullsh*t at it's best.

[Andrewbassg]

2 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

They haven't thought about it. This is just poor concept management. 

Tbh I find it a little hard to believe that they didn't realized the ramifications. I mean, I didn't but....I'm not paid to "develop" this game..

[invicta2012]

2 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Tbh I find it a little hard to believe that they didn't realized the ramifications. I mean, I didn't but....I'm not paid to "develop" this game..

They don't really know what they're doing with sub development, though. You can see that resources are being reassigned and project coherence is being lost, largely because it Just Doesn't Work. And unlike CVs... I think they know it. 

[Stockensprotz]

This is no CV bias. These are just hard, physical facts.

 

As we all know, sonar pings are little balls of yellow or green goo, fired at high speeds at ships. So of course you can get rid of them sticking to your ship by sending a guy with a bucket and a helmet and a mop down on a rope to the ships side. Do you people know nothing? Shame on you for sleeping through physics class.

 

And carriers just have more people with mops. They come from the "people with mops"-factory right next to the plane factory.

[Kartoffelmos]

11 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

They haven't thought about it. This is just poor concept management. 

 

I'm pretty sure they did think about it. WG is so scared of CV sniping being a legitimate tactic, they are willing to go to extreme lengths to avoid it. It's almost comical since during the first iteration of submarine testing, someone asked them what they would do with the CV/sub interaction (this was when CV's could one-shot submarines with dive bombers). Their response was something along the lines of "we are aware that CVs are vulnerable to submarines but we are monitoring the situation for now and won't make any adjustments to carriers".

 

Using damage control party on a ping is also quite foolish considering the reload of the pings and submarine torpedoes. They might have had cruisers and destroyers in mind when initially implementing the concept but even then, the time the consumable is active for these classes makes it inherently unsuitable for avoiding pings. That is, unless you can go undetected/behind cover afterwards but then you would not need to use DCP to begin with.

[Andrewbassg]

21 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

They don't really know what they're doing with sub development, though. You can see that resources are being reassigned and project coherence is being lost, largely because it Just Doesn't Work. And unlike CVs... I think they know it. 

I'm not disputing that subs are a bit hard to fit in the game and the subsequent necessary development cycles. But Cv's can launch/regen planes even when under direct fire and cant detonate for....quite some time now. So.....

[invicta2012]

25 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

But Cv's can launch/regen planes even when under direct fire and cant detonate for....quite some time now. So.....

Indeed, but they *should* be vulnerable to subs and flooding. 

 

The chances of a CV getting sniped by a 25 knot ship which spawned on the other side of the map is not one of the pressing game balancing issues. I played the Sub test mode last year and it was painful how long it took to get across the map. Someone has just forgotten about the automatic DCP on CVS and changed the ping cancel mechanics without bearing it in mind. It's very much WG's "Working as intended (apart from the bits we forgot)" attitude. 

[Andrewbassg]

6 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Indeed, but they *should* be vulnerable to subs and flooding. 

Erm ...  in a PvP game? Are you kidding me ? It is fundamentally dishonest. Because, set aside all the.... other  jazz ,homing, torps are the primary strength of the subs. Which is rendered nil. Just ...lolz.

And tbh I already see two outcomes.1.They leave it as is ( working as intended) 2.They remove the DC defeating the ping mechanic, leaving surface ships vulnerable to homing torps. A win win right?

6 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

 

The chances of a CV getting sniped by a 25 knot ship which spawned on the other side of the map is not one of the pressing game balancing issues. I played the Sub test mode last year and it was painful how long it took to get across the map. Someone has just forgotten about the automatic DCP on CVS and changed the ping cancel mechanics without bearing it in mind. It's very much WG's "Working as intended (apart from the bits we forgot)" attitude. 

Except that scenario may very well actually  exist. I mean a sub going to hunt a cv. Only no sane sub cap would do it..... now.

[invicta2012]

4 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Erm ...  in a PvP game? Are you kidding me ? It is fundamentally dishonest. Because, set aside all the.... other  jazz ,homing, torps are the primary strength of the subs. Which is rendered nil. Just ...lolz.

And tbh I already see two outcomes.1.They leave it as is ( working as intended) 2.They remove the DC defeating the ping mechanic, leaving surface ships vulnerable to homing torps. A win win right?

I'm not sure what you mean or what the problem is.Did you misread what I wrote?

 

Most CVs in the game are much faster than Submarines. Any CV which gets caught by a Sub - which has short ranged, slow torps - doesn't deserve special treatment and the auto DCP thing they have shouldn't neutralise sub pings.

[HystericalAccuracy]

HMS Ark Royal, at that time Britain´s biggest and most modern CV, was sunk by one single "dumb" torpedo.

 

Don´t know what else to write.

[Dante_AK]

I just love new "unleashed" Flamu videos :)

[Andrewbassg]

14 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

I'm not sure what you mean or what the problem is.Did you misread what I wrote?

Could be. I thought that you were ironic :)

14 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Most CVs in the game are much faster than Submarines. Any CV which gets caught by a Sub - which has short ranged, slow torps - doesn't deserve special treatment and the auto DCP thing they have shouldn't neutralise sub pings.

Well yes. But the problem is ( from a game dev pov) that the DC is the same "object"/action/condition across the board. Its the parameters that are different. So ...

 

[WWDragon]

1 hour ago, VIadoCro said:

HMS Ark Royal, at that time Britain´s biggest and most modern CV, was sunk by one single "dumb" torpedo.

 

Don´t know what else to write.

 

Well yes and no.

 

Ark Royal had a design flaw, there were no backup generators so when the torpedo hit caused the flooding the starboard boiler room it knocked out the ship rear half power, also for almost a hour there was no attempts at damage control that further allowed the flooding the spread were the ship lost all power and thus unable to pump the water out.

 

It was sunk by the boiler room design flaws more that of the torpedo itself, in any situation the ship was flooding and power the ship would be lost because when they restarted the engines, doing so stressed the hull increasing the flooding.

 

BTW I am not defending the ping cleanse because I dont think it should happen but I dont like wire guided torpedoes because right now is what they are, the ping mechanic should at best simply lock the torpedo on that bearing until launched then its either a "dumb" or a homing torp, also I think the ping should only be when the ship is under periscope depth as when the ship is at periscope depth or surfaced  it should be able to lock on a target after 5-10 seconds since the trade is detection as well safety ... a submerged submarine that pings would alert everyone to their bearing but could fire without risking being shelled as a surfaced/periscope depth submarine risks detection (radar would pick it up and detection ranges would be much higher) but could reach a firing solution and launch without alerting the entire map.

[Nibenay78]

3 hours ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

Being radared drains battery power... World of Bullsh*t at it's best.

I'll be good playing radar ships...

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

WG making CVs immune to yet another class of ship........... Shocker!!

 

This game is such a shitshow by now but still players plow money inte this company.

[invicta2012]

4 hours ago, VIadoCro said:

HMS Ark Royal, at that time Britain´s biggest and most modern CV, was sunk by one single "dumb" torpedo.

Well, it wasn't just the Ark. Audacity, Avenger, Courageous, Eagle, Shinano, Shinyo*, Shokaku, Taiho, Taiyo, Unryu**, Unho, Wasp, Yorktown.... all sunk by subs. 

 

*Shinyo was a converter liner originally called Scharnhorst. Ironic.

 

** Unryu I had never heard of, but apparently it was going to be the IJN's fleet carrier class at the end of WW2. 

[Ronchabale]

Poor design from the start has gotten even worse

WG fail to see that the more they complicate things the worse it gets

Not like this is a new trend for WG who only see the potential of more sales

 

Whole sub idea is a fail and will end up losing WG more money on lost players than they ever make with the subs

 

[guy_incognito79]

How dare you expect any kind of threat to the godmode class!!!!!

 

 

 

[HystericalAccuracy]

7 hours ago, WWDragon said:

Well yes and no.

 

Ark Royal had a design flaw, there were no backup generators so when the torpedo hit caused the flooding the starboard boiler room it knocked out the ship rear half power, also for almost a hour there was no attempts at damage control that further allowed the flooding the spread were the ship lost all power and thus unable to pump the water out.

 

It was sunk by the boiler room design flaws more that of the torpedo itself,

Well that is the same discussion like when it comes to Bismarck;

"The RN didn´t sink it, its own crew scuttled it."

But why did the crew scuttle it? Weeeell, because RN.

In the end: the carrier sunk after being hit by only one torpedo.

[SodaBubbles]

10 hours ago, Kartoffelmos said:

 

I'm pretty sure they did think about it. WG is so scared of CV sniping being a legitimate tactic, they are willing to go to extreme lengths to avoid it. It's almost comical since during the first iteration of submarine testing, someone asked them what they would do with the CV/sub interaction (this was when CV's could one-shot submarines with dive bombers). Their response was something along the lines of "we are aware that CVs are vulnerable to submarines but we are monitoring the situation for now and won't make any adjustments to carriers".

 

Using damage control party on a ping is also quite foolish considering the reload of the pings and submarine torpedoes. They might have had cruisers and destroyers in mind when initially implementing the concept but even then, the time the consumable is active for these classes makes it inherently unsuitable for avoiding pings. That is, unless you can go undetected/behind cover afterwards but then you would not need to use DCP to begin with.

They're in a classic error situation. They are committed to the ping concept and now they have to make all sorts of ad hoc adjustments to other things because the ping concept is essentially stoopid, spreading the stoopid out in cascading waves from the central error, the whole idea of ping.

 

If they got rid of ping, poor players wouldn't be able to play subs and won't buy them, and of course, they envision subs to be like CVs, a type in which poor players can feel they are doing well. 

[NaikonP]

I love how different nations have different ping speeds. As everyone knows the american laws of physics are different from the german laws of physics.

[Ocsimano18]

I watched several streamers playing subs, yesterday. They were quite able to sink CVs, just by getting close and torping them.

[Khaba_Gandalf]

Vor 7 Stunden, NaikonP sagte:

I love how different nations have different ping speeds. As everyone knows the american laws of physics are different from the german laws of physics.

Totally correct, because German subs dont use ping to home in their torpedoes. They use a superior technology called pong tracking :