Is this a warship game?

[NewHorizons_1]

2 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

Still waiting for the nice AA

 

[Nagine]

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

I meant that on the large scale, its about shooting big shells at various angled boxes with various more-or-mostly-less realistic mechanics. Much like wot in this regard.

 

As a personal opinion i find wows basically more complex and interesting and much more 

I see your point, but for me personally it is kinda sad that the current meta is copy-pasted from WOT (slinging shells while jerking forth and back behind cover) instead of a unique gameplay. Ocean map is the most fun and the most realistic one out here, but it is barely seen just because most players feel too insecure without hills :(

 

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

Either game must still provide fun and enjoyment. CVs provided more joy before both playing and against. And I can see how newbies find dealing with skypest and suckmarines problematic while us oldies are blowing their broadsides to pieces while they are figuring out whats going on. 

Indeed, but newbies should be educated (for example, via tutorial and forum) that historical ships are to be expected in WOWS, or simply warned that some classes are designed for experienced players (like in classic MMOs some classes open up only after a specific level) instead of giving in for their demands for magic, action and simple clicking. A niche product designed for adults with mental capacity to earn expendable income is a valid path for development. I have heard that Star Citizen is a quite profitable game even if it is not designed around ultra basic simplicity.

 

[Nibenay78]

1 hour ago, Nagine said:

I see your point, but for me personally it is kinda sad that the current meta is copy-pasted from WOT (slinging shells while jerking forth and back behind cover) instead of a unique gameplay. Ocean map is the most fun and the most realistic one out here, but it is barely seen just because most players feel too insecure without hills :(

I'd say wows is way more dynamic, plus you're not always screwed if the other flank falls. Which is 100% in WoT.

Ocean is just boring, leaving little opportunity to make surprise advances. Although with CVs thats not really a thing anymore...

 

 

1 hour ago, Nagine said:

Indeed, but newbies should be educated (for example, via tutorial and forum) that historical ships are to be expected in WOWS, or simply warned that some classes are designed for experienced players (like in classic MMOs some classes open up only after a specific level) instead of giving in for their demands for magic, action and simple clicking. A niche product designed for adults with mental capacity to earn expendable income is a valid path for development. I have heard that Star Citizen is a quite profitable game even if it is not designed around ultra basic simplicity.

You'd think so, but I think the ones that were truly interested already played wows and most influx today is more randomly "not that interested" group. We'll soon get lasers in random...

[FukushuNL]

2 hours ago, Nagine said:

I see your point, but for me personally it is kinda sad that the current meta is copy-pasted from WOT (slinging shells while jerking forth and back behind cover) instead of a unique gameplay. Ocean map is the most fun and the most realistic one out here, but it is barely seen just because most players feel too insecure without hills :(

 

Indeed, but newbies should be educated (for example, via tutorial and forum) that historical ships are to be expected in WOWS, or simply warned that some classes are designed for experienced players (like in classic MMOs some classes open up only after a specific level) instead of giving in for their demands for magic, action and simple clicking. A niche product designed for adults with mental capacity to earn expendable income is a valid path for development. I have heard that Star Citizen is a quite profitable game even if it is not designed around ultra basic simplicity.

 

I hope that CVs are not falling under the classes designed for experienced players for you as there is no skill required laying in the back sending planes to the other side of the map. CV captains are indeed the ones that demand magic, action and simple clicking instead of risk/reward, skill and balance. 

[SodaBubbles]

It WAS a warship game. In the months just before the CV ReWreck it was largely a warship game. Few CVs, no subs, you could actually play the game you came for.

Now? Can't understand why these developers work for WG, hating the game so much. 

[Andrewbassg]

19 minutes ago, SodaBubbles said:

Can't understand why these developers work for WG, hating the game so much.

They are not hating the game, it was decided that from  the "thinking man's action game  has to "evolve" to a "pew pew  press W monke game" Ya know a retard game for retardz, where everything is about the "experience: ( nice visuals) and nothing about substance. In fact it is and will be  actively discouraged to "play for the win. Just drive  monke your ship around and do pew pew. What using your head? Nah don't do that monke.....

 

Everything in the last two years was about that. If you watch an NA stream...you will start banging your head into the table.

[Andrewbassg]

44 minutes ago, SodaBubbles said:

hating the game so much. 

And actually.....they are hating just.... not the game. Remember, these are the same people who sent Turry a highly personalized :bonus code, on live stream. Otherwise..... just look around. They don't subscribe to the same values as us do.

 

[DreadArchangel]

23 hours ago, Mettabosna said:

Wtf is going on with this game,,i get fucked in the [edited] by a [edited] under the water i cant see (uboats)

 

And then get fucked by airplane spam with torps and firebombs.

My [edited] is [edited]sore already wargaming, please fix this.

 

I though this was a game about angleing and strategy, how the [edited]should i survive this in a random match with all this spam and things i cant counter?

 

 

What the helll do you call a cv or a sub, of course their warships, omg the mentality of some of the player base in this game confounds me.

Have you never heard of Midway or Taranto and of course pearl harbour.

So for all these people that  don't like the game as it stands, nobody is forcing you to play it.

[Nagine]

12 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

I'd say wows is way more dynamic, plus you're not always screwed if the other flank falls. Which is 100% in WoT.

Ocean is just boring, leaving little opportunity to make surprise advances. Although with CVs thats not really a thing anymore...

Interesting that you prefer WOWS, because it is more dynamic that WOT, yet you say "Ocean is just boring". Ocean is the only map who is usually dynamic throughout the game and not just at the closing stages, because it tends to harshly punish static campers.

And, as you say, with CVs and hill passing radars surprise advance is not really possible anyway.

 

12 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

You'd think so, but I think the ones that were truly interested already played wows and most influx today is more randomly "not that interested" group. We'll soon get lasers in random...

WG's indecisiveness regarding its games' target groups is one of the issue why in the end games are suffering from player retention. If a player comes for magic, speed and clicking at moving things, he can easily find alternatives.

[Nagine]

12 hours ago, FukushuNL said:

I hope that CVs are not falling under the classes designed for experienced players for you as there is no skill required laying in the back sending planes to the other side of the map. CV captains are indeed the ones that demand magic, action and simple clicking instead of risk/reward, skill and balance. 

Although there is still an extreme difference between experienced CV player and the one who came "to fly planes", subs have a higher chance to become "an experienced players'" class. Of course, for that WG have to give up on Ping mechanic, which's main reason of existence is that players would have a chance to click often. Attention span requirement would already be a good enough filter of simple clickers'. Sub fans are already ready for the waiting part in the sub gameplay.

[Enkidu136]

On 4/22/2022 at 1:05 PM, Mettabosna said:

Wtf is going on with this game,,i get fucked in the [edited] by a [edited] under the water i cant see (uboats)

 

And then get fucked by airplane spam with torps and firebombs.

My [edited] is [edited]sore already wargaming, please fix this.

 

I though this was a game about angleing and strategy, how the [edited]should i survive this in a random match with all this spam and things i cant counter?

 

 

WoWs was, is, and will always be a simple "just dodge" meme sry game

[Nibenay78]

1 hour ago, Nagine said:

Interesting that you prefer WOWS, because it is more dynamic that WOT, yet you say "Ocean is just boring". Ocean is the only map who is usually dynamic throughout the game and not just at the closing stages, because it tends to harshly punish static campers.

And, as you say, with CVs and hill passing radars surprise advance is not really possible anyway.

Dynamic to the extent that individual ships usually keep moving, other than that I'd say it's a max-range shootout as anyone who gets slightly closer will get focused.

 

Islands are what players make them, either a place to spam from safety or a place to move up island by island. Personally I prefer the latter (if possible, it might not always be), even moving into tight waters with battleships if I belive it can press up the front.

 

Most t10 Wot games tends to be hide behind the hill/doublebush and "shoot the pixel". Eventually one flank crumbles and the faster tanks move up to shoot the other flank in the arse, at which point it's game over. A broad statement, but some heavy tanks are slower than battleships though so... :D

 

I think we can agree on the last part, CVs were not abundant, no radars and limited hydro made sneaking up much more likely before. My favorite is WGs explanation that "radar and hydro goes through land because otherwise it would be too difficult for players to understand".

I don't remember the exact quote, but I had it as signature here for years, taken from a  WG Q&A page that is now gone.

 

1 hour ago, Nagine said:

WG's indecisiveness regarding its games' target groups is one of the issue why in the end games are suffering from player retention. If a player comes for magic, speed and clicking at moving things, he can easily find alternatives.

Lets say I'm happy for qutting WoT, it has some charm, but I usually reinstall it during christmas and I'm simply finding the newer additions more and more unfun. WoWs is doing the same thing, they are just some years behind but trying to catch up.

 

To go back to the OPs question - it used to be a game about warships focusing on their particular various roles. Now it's a spamfest. 

[huymog]

On 4/22/2022 at 1:25 PM, SV_Kompresor said:

 

CVs are warships too.

When I enter a battle as a CV I play planes - therein lies the problem!

[huymog]

4 hours ago, DreadArchangel said:

What the helll do you call a cv or a sub, of course their warships, omg the mentality of some of the player base in this game confounds me.

Have you never heard of Midway or Taranto and of course pearl harbour.

So for all these people that  don't like the game as it stands, nobody is forcing you to play it. 

Yes they are warships but in the case of CVs/naval aviation they were a disruptive technology. The two instances you quote are prime examples that large gun ships were already obsolete when carriers were present as the capital ship. In other words BBs and CVs could not coexist in real life. We now have an arcade game which is attempting to have an obsolete technology as the mainstay of the game work with the weapon system which replaced them. I leave it you all to come to your own conclusions as to if WG have succeeded.

 

Submarines can be thought of in a similar fashion. In the time period of the game they were simply too slow to be effective in fleet actions. It was not until the advent of nuclear powered attack submarines that they became very effective in the hunter/killer as opposed to the lie-in-wait role. Again, in this arcade game, WG are attempting to integrate a class of warship which in reality at the time was not primarily a fleet action vessel.

 

I do take an exception to having my mentality questioned because I believe that both CVs and submarines are degrading the game and clash with the core concept of the game. Yes they are warships, as are minesweepers, minelayers, MTBs, MGBs, monitors, corvettes etc. but these are not fleet engagement relevant vessels.

 

 

[lafeel]

Unpopular opinion, but true: Subs and Carriers are warships too.

[huymog]

2 minutes ago, lafeel said:

Unpopular opinion, but true: Subs and Carriers are warships too.

Carriers and BBs in the same game is the equivalent of cavalry and tanks in the same game, carriers replaced BBs as the primary fleet vessel. Galleons, viking longships and triremes are warships too, presumably you want them in the game!!!

[lafeel]

19 minutes ago, huymog said:

Carriers and BBs in the same game is the equivalent of cavalry and tanks in the same game, carriers replaced BBs as the primary fleet vessel. Galleons, viking longships and triremes are warships too, presumably you want them in the game!!!

Carriers and BB's coexisted for decades, including during both world wars let me remind you.

[huymog]

37 minutes ago, lafeel said:

Carriers and BB's coexisted for decades, including during both world wars let me remind you.

That is true, but let's look at that more closely. Although they existed at the end of WW1, they did not take part in any significant battle, were an experimental weapon system very early in their development and were not capable of taking out a battleship. By WW2 the tremendous advances in aviation resulted in warplanes capable of threatening BBs. However, their true value in battle was a matter of opinion during the 1930's and the BB was still considered to be the most powerful naval weapons system at the outbreak of WW2. It was above all the battle of Midway that made it clear that battleships were already obsolete and that to dominate the seas, CVs were the way to go.

 

The problem naval planners had between the wars were the lack of major battles to test the two weapon systems against each other, hence the split of opinion among naval planners of the relative merits of CVs over BBs in late mid-war and early WW2 period. So, yes, they coexisted but it was difficult to pinpoint when CVs made BBs obsolete, but sometime in that period there will have a point when advances in the abilities of planes and their carriers made them the overwhelmingly more powerful weapon system.

 

Now, World of Warships is an arcade game, but my main point is that we are seeing where an arcade game meets reality. WoWs is a game centred on gunships, in particular big guns on battleships, but including the other two main ship classes of the post-Dreadnought battleship era, cruisers and destroyers. CVs are the weapon system which made battleships obsolete in reality. Now in an arcade game it may be possible to make the two coexist, but they seem to having difficulty putting a superior weapon system (CVs and their planes) into the game. The real problem is at the top end of the game, Tiers 8-10 battleships are an obsolete concept when carriers (or as implemented by WG, planes) of the same time period are involved. Hence my analogy to cavalry and tanks, these coexisted for decades, the battleship to CV relationship is analogous.

 

Submarines are a similar problem, they are introducing hunter-killer submarines (as opposed to the commerce raiding/blockading submarines of the 2 world wars) a type of sub which was not fully capable until the advent of nuclear power.

 

We do now have subs and carriers in the game, and yes, they did coexist over the time period of the game and if people want them in the game then why not: I just want to point out the difficulty of integrating the weapon system into the game which made gunships obsolete, namely CVs, and a class which would/could have done the same namely hunter-killer subs.

 

I remain in hope that WG will succeed with CVs and subs but for the reasons given in this post I remain sceptical. I am of the opinion that their introduction has been detrimental to the quality of gameplay. The game at its core with only BB CA/CL and DD is deceptively simple in concept but difficult to master. Is the game improved with CVs and subs? For me not, but that's only my opinion.

 

 

 

[LastButterfly]

8 minutes ago, huymog said:

It was above all the battle of Midway that made it clear that battleships were already obsolete and that to dominate the seas, CVs were the way to go.

Eh.
The Americans largely experimented with CVs in their fleet problems, in a good way for once ; their view evolved pre-war, and it was, in general, not anymore a simple "BBs are better, CVs support them" before Midway. At all. Japan followed a somewhat similar path.

On the other hand, much of the British admiralty kept arguing after Midway that it had been a sort of "CV fluke" and was not at all a proof that BBs were obsolete. The royal navy would take much, much more time to admit that.

 

Midway was a catalyst of this change, but by no means a trigger, and its effect varied widely. In a sense, Taranto - and Pearl Harbor to a lesser extent - were far more impacting when it comes to pushing CVs in the front.

[huymog]

4 minutes ago, LastButterfly said:

Eh.
The Americans largely experimented with CVs in their fleet problems, in a good way for once ; their view evolved pre-war, and it was, in general, not anymore a simple "BBs are better, CVs support them" before Midway. At all. Japan followed a somewhat similar path.

On the other hand, much of the British admiralty kept arguing after Midway that it had been a sort of "CV fluke" and was not at all a proof that BBs were obsolete. The royal navy would take much, much more time to admit that.

 

Midway was a catalyst of this change, but by no means a trigger, and its effect varied widely. In a sense, Taranto - and Pearl Harbor to a lesser extent - were far more impacting when it comes to pushing CVs in the front.

The three biggest navies (Japan, US and UK) were hedging their bets in the interwar period, all built both carriers and battleships. The deployment for the battle of Midway shows that both Japan and the US were convinced (probably because of Taranto and Pearl Harbor) that the key weapon was the CV. Taranto and Pearl Harbor were not fleet on fleet actions but indications of the effectiveness of airstrikes from carriers, and the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse to aircraft showed the vulnerability of BB/(BCs to aircraft.

 

But, I am more concerned with the game World of Warships than with the discussion about when exactly it was clear that CVs were the only way for real life navies to go, interesting as that discussion is. We have CVs and subs in the game and I see that even an arcade game has difficulty integrating superior weapon systems into the game without spoiling it, and find it an interesting parallel to reality. Nobody found a way to keep BBs as a top naval weapon system with the coming of age of CVs and their planes, can WG achieve this feat and make the game better in doing so?

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, LastButterfly said:

The royal navy would take much, much more time to admit that.

Which is quite ironic given  Bismarck, Taranto (!!) and Force Z..... As for the USN quite arguably Mitchell and his experiments  did much to help there As yes the Fleet Problems. The IJN while had undeniable strike capabilities, lacked in their thinking the  vision of tactical integration, with which the USN had kept experimenting. Not surprising, giving their lack of exercises and rigid doctrinal thinking . They kept dreaming about Tsushima and recreating it. They didn't seek ways, they did dress rehearsals....

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

On 4/22/2022 at 1:05 PM, Mettabosna said:

Wtf is going on with this game,,i get fucked in the [edited] by a [edited] under the water i cant see (uboats)

 

And then get fucked by airplane spam with torps and firebombs.

My [edited] is [edited]sore already wargaming, please fix this.

 

I though this was a game about angleing and strategy, how the [edited]should i survive this in a random match with all this spam and things i cant counter?

 

 

Naaah mate... You must have misread the box, this has nothing to do with warships or angling. This is show us your credit card or we will spam you with BS Subs and CVs and ruin you day every day your foolish enough to log in. This game has nothing to do with warships fighting warships, tactics, angling or anything else that requires brainpower or actual engagement.

You must have taken a wrong turn somewhere. Disconnect your brain and join the CV mains!

[SodaBubbles]

14 hours ago, DreadArchangel said:

What the helll do you call a cv or a sub, of course their warships, omg the mentality of some of the player base in this game confounds me.

Have you never heard of Midway or Taranto and of course pearl harbour.

So for all these people that  don't like the game as it stands, nobody is forcing you to play it.

 

There are numerous Naval weapons and ship types that do not appear in this game and for good reason.

 

Adding the two types of ships that made capital ships obsolete to a game about capital ships is simply stupid beyond belief.

 

The core game is fantastic. Nothing else is as good. That is why we stay even though the developers are doing their best to destroy the game.

[Yedwy]

On 4/22/2022 at 1:05 PM, Mettabosna said:

I though this was a game about angleing and strategy

Well theres your problem, this game is in fact about whaling and lootboxes