Credit where credit is due: The WG's latest DevBlog was informative and very well written - we want such presented info (BTW, I still think submarines should have its own separate game mode)!

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

Credit where credit is due: The WG's latest DevBlog was informative and very well written - we want such presented info (BTW, I still think submarines should have its own separate game mode)!

 

 

"Submarines, additional explanations"

 

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/228

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[Shaka_D]

Dude, why are your post titles sooooo long

[Pikkozoikum]

Yes, I liked that as well, hope we get such stuff more often

[Hugh_Ruka]

Yes I do agree. It nicely showed how CVs are OP ...

[PaxtonQuigly]

23 minutes ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

informative and very well written

 

I didnt find it that informative nor well written. It contains a lot of Corporate PR Speak. As if WeeGee is ever going to reveal their true motives behind the implementation and balancing of subs... $$$

To me it seems like a lot of text explaining why our feelings and experiences are wrong and how their spreadsheet is right. Time will tell. 

[BanzaiPiluso]

"The interaction between the submarine pings and surface ships, in particular battleships, was a popular topic brought up by you."

 

Translation: Everybody hates it.

 

 

 

[Yedwy]

Bunch of PR BS in that devblog, at least this time they seem to have actually involved a PR person in writing it so it is an improvement of sorts... 

 

Btw WG - making the sub torp range just slightly longer then the counterplay option for most ships at those tiers...  Thattago, that will surely sell your spin to the players...

[Ocsimano18]

Their analyzis is failed. Submarines underperform compared to other classes because the let players with less than 50 battles to command subs.

[BanzaiPiluso]

---

One way I enjoyed the depth charges, sitting in smoke, pressing G, relaxing bubble bath on demand.

[Miscommunication_dept]

52 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Yes I do agree. It nicely showed how CVs are OP ...

You are aware that you’re not supposed to look at that.

 

Propaganda department forgot to remove CV data before posting.

[PaP_Mentoles]

If the class' popularity is lower, it will indicate that players interested in submarines do not like their mechanics, and we will look into how we can improve them

 

LOL

Indicating that players are not interested at all for submarines didn't crossed their minds (if they have any)...

 

We will not attempt to decrease their popularity with nerfs if the class is already well balanced.

 

Like they did with CV's. They just made them OP to keep them "popular"

 

Nothing but pure BS lengthy text as their so called apology a month ago. Too many wording but nothing meaningful

[Misago]

People can argue about if submarines are good for this game or not, but I don't think anyone can honestly say that the devblog was informative and well written. It was a mess of corporate speak and thinly veiled "Players are not liking the submarines as much as we say they have to like them".

 

WG is very sorry that we are not understanding how much fun we are having with submarines in this game :D

[Tanaka_15]

well this is CV fiasko all over again. WG just don learn. 

[Yedwy]

1 minute ago, Misago said:

WG is very sorry that we are not understanding how much fun we are having with submarines in this game :D

Mhm thats why we already have the first wave of buffs tomorrow, so we can have even more fun... 

[Verblonde]

1 hour ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

The WG's latest DevBlog was informative and very well written

I agree (with a few niggles on the precise language, but I'm a pedant); mind you, I do speak 'corporate' as a nasty side-effect of my various jobs over the years...

[BanzaiPiluso]

Now seriously, what they want is to attract a good number of turdmarines players although smaller than other classes. The have a niche for CV players, the bulk of the population playing surface ships and now more players into the game with the subs niche. It's a way of expanding the player base, so no matter how much the rest of the players complain they will go ahead and add them. 

I hope they lose a lot of players like me these months so the growth doesn't happen as they expect it.

 

[Gvozdika]

I appreciate the provisions of data in the dev blog even if I find WG's interpretation of that data erm.... very WG-like. 

 

Would  @Crysantos and @MrConway please convey the fact that dev blogs showing data like this IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED rather than the usual vague statements such as 'our statistics show that'..... The playerbase is not stupid. It is not daft. If you support your arguments with facts you stand a better chance of getting people on-side (or at the very least providing some rationale for whatever antics you have in mind in future). 

 

Also - anyone notice that subs are second only to CVs in terms of spotting/scouting - beating DDs in general .... ergo all those arguing that 'subs are blind, subs can't outspot stuff, blah blah' might want to be quiet now.....

 

 

 

[Jvd2000]

Only part of submarines I enjoyed was the weekly 1200 coal…and even that was a pitiful amount that cost me some clicking of buttons and the removal of zero point captains from the reserve pool. 
 

That and the occasional pleasure confirmed by spreadsheets when I pushed the G key……

[SodaBubbles]

Totally agree. That was a great, informative post, whether or not subs and the toxic cheat torps should be in Randoms. It would be wonderful if WG continues in this direction.

[Lootboxer]

4 hours ago, Jvd2000 said:

That and the occasional pleasure confirmed by spreadsheets when I pushed the G key…… 

Congratulations sir, you have found the G spot!

 

On topic: I like recent broadcast too: a lot of useful data (showing how broken CVs are ). And much better PR spin then before, at least Ministry of Truth is making progress, now time for balancing department.

[WildWind84]

9 hours ago, Ocsimano18 said:

Their analyzis is failed. Submarines underperform compared to other classes because the let players with less than 50 battles to command subs.

 

Also, don't forget that most players go in Ranked not with ship in which are best, but instead they go in ship which have some protection against subs... 

[Yedwy]

6 hours ago, WildWind84 said:

Also, don't forget that most players go in Ranked not with ship in which are best, but instead they go in ship which have some protection against subs... 

I go with the ship I need to grind as ever... 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

I'm actually missing one piece of vital information, and it would be great if WG includes this type of vital info in their future editions.

 

[OldSchoolFrankie]

It would be even better if they could now let the actions speak for themselves, but that's the problematic part again right now.

[Gianni_Donati]

Good effort in polite PR language, WG, and for once useful data enclosed. Anyway, please remember that Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta