[WG] Seraphice WG Staff 1,664 posts 7,812 battles Report post #76 Posted January 5 16 hours ago, Cammo1962 said: It is still hard to sink them even with a BB where the ASW goes from 5 to 11 km and the sub can send his torps from 11 km and ping you from that ranges to. And the natural sub hunter the DD have been rendered usless to do it it in unless the sub reall f... it up @Seraphice and at the same time we have asked WG to remove the ping removal from DCP but no no wont happen and you know the reason why we want it removed from the DCP. I do know they are being tested but we also know that most of these changes to the test subs stays we have seen it over and over again and to be very very clear about subs i would like to have them in the game but the state they are in i avoid them like the plague. Kind regard Cammo1962 If the changes were applied to test subs then there was a reason for that - if they were buffed, they were very likely underperforming compared to their peers. As for DDs being "useless and the natural sub hunter" they are not useless, but it is true that they are not the primary ones to be dealing with submarines - this much is true. DDs already have a lot of other tasks such as spotting and capping on top of the general task to deal damage to enemies. Thus this falls more on Cruisers and BBs with ASW Airstrikes to deal with submarines in the interest of not overburdening DDs and ensuring there are enough ships to be able to deal damage to submerged submarines. 16 hours ago, J0tt said: Yeah, it's super fun and engaging having subs hide between their own BBs and cruisers while they spam pings and torps. Without long range ASW you have no chance to engage them at all since you have to kill all the surface ships first ... All ASW should should have at least 12 km range. Having 5 km on a BB is an insult. Some BBs such as Ohio have a very short ASW range because they are already strong in plenty of other departments. Some ships will have better ASW. Some ships will have worse. Ohio is an example of this. You could argue the same about DDs with more than 12km torps. Does it make them OP that they cannot be radared in that case and thus cant be damaged while throwing torpedoes? At least a sub needs to give away its location to do so. While things aren't as black and white as I described above, they also are not so much in the case you described. It's a dynamic game. Fair seas captain! ~Sera 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[TEPES] VeteranGamer84 Players 1,314 posts 52,321 battles Report post #77 Posted January 5 Quote The potencial future of WOWS As a World of Warships Veteran I'm telling you that this game is dying & poor WG doesn't even know about it. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[WG] Seraphice WG Staff 1,664 posts 7,812 battles Report post #78 Posted January 5 12 hours ago, nerderklaus said: What does battle count mean? I have seen people with 28k battles who still don't know the game modes, obviously clan players who play tier 10 most of the time... So someone is not allowed to enjoy the game for a very long time without learning extensively about it? Casual players exist in our game just as much and not everyone cares as much about the same things. 12 hours ago, nerderklaus said: Obviously there are some things going on with RNG for whatever reason, f.e. Player A: ship like Musashi Player B: ship like Legendary Upgrade Yamato Both ships exchanging salvos without a kiting situation, but for some reason the Musashi constantly gets spreads with less than 50% of the diameter of the LU Yami. This mechanic is an major issue in multiple ways. It destroys the purpose of accuracy upgrades and it's anti-fairplay. Why aren't lots of people mentioning this? High tier battles make it obvious that most people in this game are too slow in the head to observe something like this. If you are Consistently getting better dispersion in your musashi than you are in Yamato then I would say something is wrong. Luckily it's not the case. You may remember the one time you got into a duel with a musashi in your legmod yamato where he citted you through the cheek 3x and you missed, but you wont see the 20 other shots both of you fired that match where you got better dispersion 18/20 times. Accuracy upgrades work. Anyone who was here for Deadeye will tell you so. 12 hours ago, nerderklaus said: Anyway, with good RNG such a player can easily slap a lucky 15k salvo in a ship while being completely save or even get overmatch/plunging citadels while being completely save. So you say good players are unfair in matchmaking, but then you say its only with good RNG and lucky salvos? So are they good or lucky? 12 hours ago, nerderklaus said: but for like 10 years they only cloned COD4, a bad anti-skill shooter. Ok so what's your suggestion to fix player behavior? 12 hours ago, nerderklaus said: The submarine balancing looks similar to Iowas and Monties getting buffs to citadel and repair when almost all Iowas and Monties on EU are sailing in a straight line while constantly giving flat broadside. Are Iowa and Montana too strong now? I don't think so. Are they good? Yes. Are they consistent? Yes. Are they too strong? No 12 hours ago, nerderklaus said: A perfectly aligned ASW airstrike does like 1/8-1/6 of the HP of a same-tier submarine. The ASW airstrikes require buffs to their performance when submarines were new in randoms Considering that often you see submarines getting bombarded with up to 6 airstrikes, and a perfectly aligned airstrike will do about 1/4 of a sub's HP in a lot of cases, it is not really necessary to buff them. 12 hours ago, nerderklaus said: The problem with the spreadsheet simply is that lots of submarine players have unimaginable degrees of incompetence How do you figure compared to other classes? How do you get to this conclusion? 12 hours ago, nerderklaus said: but for like 10 years they only cloned COD4, a bad anti-skill shooter. Anti-skill? So what is skill then? Fair seas captain! ~Sera 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BLING] Cammo1962 [BLING] Players 2,468 posts 25,257 battles Report post #79 Posted January 5 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Seraphice said: If the changes were applied to test subs then there was a reason for that - if they were buffed, they were very likely underperforming compared to their peers. As for DDs being "useless and the natural sub hunter" they are not useless, but it is true that they are not the primary ones to be dealing with submarines - this much is true. DDs already have a lot of other tasks such as spotting and capping on top of the general task to deal damage to enemies. Thus this falls more on Cruisers and BBs with ASW Airstrikes to deal with submarines in the interest of not overburdening DDs and ensuring there are enough ships to be able to deal damage to submerged submarines. Some BBs such as Ohio have a very short ASW range because they are already strong in plenty of other departments. Some ships will have better ASW. Some ships will have worse. Ohio is an example of this.You could argue the same about DDs with more than 12km torps. Does it make them OP that they cannot be radared in that case and thus cant be damaged while throwing torpedoes? At least a sub needs to give away its location to do so. While things aren't as black and white as I described above, they also are not so much in the case you described. It's a dynamic game. Fair seas captain! ~Sera Hi @Seraphice with DDs you take a higher risk because you need to get closer to get some good hits and using you torps outside 12 km makes it harder to hit unless the driver on the other side is dump. With a sub you can ping, shoot and then dive beneath radar and to some degree hydro and you cant do that in a DD when inside their ranges. And as I have said before I would like subs in the game but not in this state and in the last 2 to 3 years when the player base have been saying this here aint right you (WG) have been hellbent to push and shoved it down people's throats and yes i also have the understanding that WG have to earn money but it is the shady way that they are doing it now that makes me want to puke and i was happily putting money down when new stuff came out but since the change business methods I have put restrictions on what kind of transactions I have with WG. Kind regards Cammo1962 Edited January 5 by Cammo1962 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[THESO] HMS_Kilinowski [THESO] Players 2,665 posts 25,509 battles Report post #80 Posted January 5 22 hours ago, Seraphice said: An interesting piece to read, and yeah, while the tests may not be exactly accurate, and it's a rather small sample size, its better than nothing. Still - ships function as more than just a big brawl against similar ships, but as a part of a larger dynamic in a chaotic game. I see your point though. I see what you mean. But if we tried to devise an experiment based on "a larger dynamic", you would probably say, the setup was too chaotic and too much driven by RNG, thus not representative of any difference of power between T9, T10 and T11. Actually the whole IJN-BB experiment is rather representative, because the bots in the experiment, at least if AI is set to "high", stay at 18-20km range. So they do exactly what the IJN-BBs are designed for. One might joke the only difference between the bots and typical human BB-mains is that the bots have better aim. So in short, the bots play the ship according to its role, which is the strong suit of the line. Also there is no inconsistency within the line. The Izumo, the Yamato the Satsuma, they are all designed for the same role of long range war of attrition. As you said, the sample size is small. But I do not have the possibilities of WG. For me, one run takes ~10-15 min. There is already 2 hours of training room in there. WG can probably simulate such results within a fraction of the time. I didn't want to give a definitive proof, just make people raise an eyebrow. I suspect superships are basically overpowered. And with the Combat Instructions on top, they are probably on a T12-level. 22 hours ago, Seraphice said: As for work on the API, I'm afraid it isn't happening anytime in the forseeable future. Sorry. Too bad. Is there a possibility for you to ask - just ask - what the average damage on the current tech-tree subs is? Just to once put the class into perspective. The arument of subs being balanced must be based on some hard numbers and hopefully they are not top secret. 3 hours ago, Seraphice said: So someone is not allowed to enjoy the game for a very long time without learning extensively about it? Casual players exist in our game just as much and not everyone cares as much about the same things. I think you misunderstood that. Nerderklaus is trying to say that my number of battles doesn't give me expertise, although I never claimed any expertise based on my number of battles in the first place. But another poster brought it up and now Nerderklaus, who is unable to differenciate between people, is trying to hang that around my neck, ignorant of the fact that I didn't say that. 3 hours ago, Seraphice said: Considering that often you see submarines getting bombarded with up to 6 airstrikes, and a perfectly aligned airstrike will do about 1/4 of a sub's HP in a lot of cases, it is not really necessary to buff them. It's not just a quarter of HP, you also most of times, get a flooding and an oil spill that is like waving a big red flag and shouting "Here I am, please kill me." Then you are literally forced to use one of your DCPs that is limited to 3 charges and lasts 5s. Those 5s are too short to outlast the waves of ASW planes that are sent your way. So a late ASW strike catches you on cooldown and you get a second oil spill, this time permanent. This will get you killed. If this was not a thing, submarines wouldn't spend 12.500 coal to mount the otherwise so useless DCPmod1, for a measly extra 2s of DCP-action time. Ofc none of these critics knows these details, because they don't play the class and don't care about the play style. Just "Pls gib easy mode." Talking about anti-skill games, but refusing to learn counter-play in this game. Not a contradiction at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[THESO] HMS_Kilinowski [THESO] Players 2,665 posts 25,509 battles Report post #81 Posted January 5 3 hours ago, VeteranGamer84 said: As a World of Warships Veteran I'm telling you that this game is dying & poor WG doesn't even know about it. Case closed then. If a veteran player says that, no point in even having my own humble opinion. After all, I am just HMS_Unpronouncable, while we have been dignified with one line from the original VeteranGamer84. Not 83 or 85, those two guys don't know what they are talking about, but 84. sry, couldn't resist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[PTS] J0tt Players 200 posts Report post #82 Posted January 5 Vor 9 Stunden, Seraphice sagte: Some BBs such as Ohio have a very short ASW range because they are already strong in plenty of other departments. Some ships will have better ASW. Some ships will have worse. Ohio is an example of this. Worse ASW would be acceptable if that means reducing the damage or the number of depth charges dropped. Crippling the range is not worse ASW, in the current game it's essentially equal to not having ASW. Ships like Ohio, Musashi, Jean Bart or Massachusetts are strong, I cannot argue with that. It doesn't change the fact that playing against submarines that constantly spam you from way beyond your range is super unfun. It's weird to 'balance' ships by crippling them against a ship class that wasn't even in the game when these ships were in their prime. The only explanation I can come up with is you try to powercreep these ships by any means necessary. Years ago I laughed about the balance department at Blizzard because of their decisions in World of Warcraft but since I've encountered the balancing decisions made at WG, I get the feeling that Blizzard balance back then was the gold standard. Vor 9 Stunden, Seraphice sagte: You could argue the same about DDs with more than 12km torps. Does it make them OP that they cannot be radared in that case and thus cant be damaged while throwing torpedoes? At least a sub needs to give away its location to do so. DDs do not have homing. If you would remove homing from submarines people would complain far less. On a side note: I totally vote for trimming the ranges of all stealth fired weapons across the board. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[TEPES] VeteranGamer84 Players 1,314 posts 52,321 battles Report post #83 Posted January 5 10 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said: Case closed then. If a veteran player says that, no point in even having my own humble opinion. After all, I am just HMS_Unpronouncable, while we have been dignified with one line from the original VeteranGamer84. Not 83 or 85, those two guys don't know what they are talking about, but 84. sry, couldn't resist. It's not about 84, It's about the 51k battles I played which you only have half of them. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[THESO] HMS_Kilinowski [THESO] Players 2,665 posts 25,509 battles Report post #84 Posted January 6 1 hour ago, VeteranGamer84 said: It's not about 84, It's about the 51k battles I played which you only have half of them. Tell that to the OP: On 1/4/2023 at 10:41 PM, nerderklaus said: What does battle count mean? I have seen people with 28k battles who still don't know the game modes, obviously clan players who play tier 10 most of the time... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[POP] MixuS [POP] Beta Tester 637 posts 12,005 battles Report post #85 Posted January 6 13 hours ago, J0tt said: It's weird to 'balance' ships by crippling them against a ship class that wasn't even in the game when these ships were in their prime. Not just weird but mindboglingly idiotic. Regular ship facing one of said ships really does not get much consolation knowing that "hey at least that ship sucks against subs". Besides, I don't think any of ships currently "balanced" with terrible ASW are so good that they mandate nerfs. Sure, they could be nerfed slightly, but they are not blatantly overpowered, like say Russian CVs for example. There's also an easy solution to overpowered premium ships without these smoke and mirror tricks. Just effing nerf them! You (WG that is) yourself have yourself invented this 'premium ships cannot be nerfed if it's not said in their "terms and conditions" that they can't be nerfed'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there is nothing legally binding saying that you cannot do it. Playerbase just has this feeling of entitlement that if they buy something, it cannot be balanced if it's not explicitely stated that it could be balanced later when they are buying it. Premiums should not be immune to game balance changes. Premiums being considered immune to nerfs also makes it hard to buff premiums that would need buffing because of the danger of making them overpowered, and then being unable to nerf them. I know several forumites will start crying that nooo don't touch my ship. F them. If you need unfair advantage over other players then F them. I own several premiums considered overpowered (for example Thunderer, Alaska, Stalingrad, Georgia) and I'm 100% if any of these get nerfed if that's considered neccessary. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[TEPES] VeteranGamer84 Players 1,314 posts 52,321 battles Report post #86 Posted January 6 8 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said: Tell that to the OP: Quote who still don't know the game modes I know the game modes & sadly they are few & the upcoming new ships are copy paste from the original ships with very minor tweaks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[S-N-W] LukkaiCH [S-N-W] Players 547 posts 13,817 battles Report post #87 Posted January 7 Vor 16 Stunden, MixuS sagte: Not just weird but mindboglingly idiotic. Regular ship facing one of said ships really does not get much consolation knowing that "hey at least that ship sucks against subs". Besides, I don't think any of ships currently "balanced" with terrible ASW are so good that they mandate nerfs. Sure, they could be nerfed slightly, but they are not blatantly overpowered, like say Russian CVs for example. There's also an easy solution to overpowered premium ships without these smoke and mirror tricks. Just effing nerf them! You (WG that is) yourself have yourself invented this 'premium ships cannot be nerfed if it's not said in their "terms and conditions" that they can't be nerfed'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there is nothing legally binding saying that you cannot do it. Playerbase just has this feeling of entitlement that if they buy something, it cannot be balanced if it's not explicitely stated that it could be balanced later when they are buying it. Premiums should not be immune to game balance changes. Premiums being considered immune to nerfs also makes it hard to buff premiums that would need buffing because of the danger of making them overpowered, and then being unable to nerf them. I know several forumites will start crying that nooo don't touch my ship. F them. If you need unfair advantage over other players then F them. I own several premiums considered overpowered (for example Thunderer, Alaska, Stalingrad, Georgia) and I'm 100% if any of these get nerfed if that's considered neccessary. Considering the existence of tier XI ships and the gimmicks on some, I'm not sure if "F them" is appropriate still. On the other hand, it probably is. Anyway: There may actually be legal problems with that. I don't know for sure, I am by no means an expert on this. What I am pretty sure of however, is that they should be able to change the general EULA accordingly, then allowing them to do it even for ships that didn't have such a warning when originally given out. Of course anyone playing would have to accept said updated EULA again. And we know how some people are about that. (Though the vast majority is of the 'click and forget' sort, let's be honest here.) And yes, people would go mad on "I paid money for this, how dare you nerf it!" However such a thing is hardly without precedence. And I'm not even talking WG themselves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[POP] MixuS [POP] Beta Tester 637 posts 12,005 battles Report post #88 Posted January 7 I remember that Armored Warfare (is that game still alive btw?) didn't have any "premium protection" and it was no problem. I'm also no legal expert but I don't think there should be any legal issues on changing already sold premium ships. If game devs cannot change something they sold, then they could not provide any patches either. Granted I haven't read the EULA (who does) so I don't know what wording it has, if any, regarding premium ships. But this is EU server as and afaik EULA is not legally binding in EU. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[HAKUY] Yosha_AtaIante Players 8,032 posts 19,168 battles Report post #89 Posted January 7 2 hours ago, MixuS said: I remember that Armored Warfare (is that game still alive btw?) didn't have any "premium protection" and it was no problem. I'm also no legal expert but I don't think there should be any legal issues on changing already sold premium ships. If game devs cannot change something they sold, then they could not provide any patches either. Granted I haven't read the EULA (who does) so I don't know what wording it has, if any, regarding premium ships. But this is EU server as and afaik EULA is not legally binding in EU. They tried changing guilio Cesare and the community was like "REEE don't nerf my beloved OP premium!" and they didn't go through with it. You know, some ships have to stay OP and others aren't allowed to be. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[PDC_] mergus72 Players 36 posts 19,535 battles Report post #90 Posted January 7 I hope game soon dies. I just cannot play this bs anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[HAKUY] Yosha_AtaIante Players 8,032 posts 19,168 battles Report post #91 Posted January 7 16 minutes ago, mergus72 said: I hope game soon dies. I just cannot play this bs anymore. Just move to the next game? why hope for it to die? Can't accept that there are still people who enjoy it? You don't want them to enjoy it? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[THESO] HMS_Kilinowski [THESO] Players 2,665 posts 25,509 battles Report post #92 Posted January 7 1 hour ago, Zuihou_Kai_Ni said: Just move to the next game? why hope for it to die? Can't accept that there are still people who enjoy it? You don't want them to enjoy it? Maybe he's too weak to move on. He needs the game to die, cause he is addicted to the game and lacks the willpower to quit. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
