Jump to content


Planes, Trains and T110s


  • Please log in to reply
41951 replies to this topic

Zergling #40881 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 18:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 8,467
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Sep 17 2019 - 03:09, said:

Warships forums mods have started disappearing posts and banning posters critical of the submarine insertion -- while those who are cheerleaders, kiss the mods' butts, and give lip service to the letter of the rules while raping the spirit of the rules, are given free reign to engage in vile posting behavior.

 

Yeah, I saw how those forums were some years ago and GTFOed. The WoWP forums were just the same back in closed beta, and that sure worked out well for WG.

 



cipher12 #40882 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 19:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 11752 battles
  • 7,437
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
So DDs need to scout, capture points, contest points, counter enemy DD, and hunt submarines to protect friendly BB all while trying to avoid being scouted and ravaged by dive bombers and tiny tims.

SpectreHD #40883 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 19:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16921 battles
  • 17,343
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

It says a lot that I would rather play WoT, and I have played WoT a little this past 2 weeks, then I would play WoWS.

 

Mainly because BBs get to be slow lumbering ships with neon lights while, cruisers get to be like BBs but without the durability while playing against ships with thermoptic camo and now probably cloaking vehicles than can be invulnerable yet be fast while ASW is like AA, some AOE crap.

 

Honestly, if this was the route WoWS is going to take, I would much rather they make BBs more mobile, increase ROF and reduce their alpha damage.



DerViktim #40884 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 19:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 18344 battles
  • 7,120
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View Postcipher12, on Sep 16 2019 - 13:00, said:

So DDs need to scout, capture points, contest points, counter enemy DD, and hunt submarines to protect friendly BB all while trying to avoid being scouted and ravaged by dive bombers and tiny tims.

 

That is a bit of a gross oversimplification of DDs, but yes, that is pretty much all the various roles that DDs can play. However, certain lines of DDs are better at certain things than others. DD tech trees vary wildly in capability at the various roles. An expert DD player could probably discuss, at length, which lines are best at which specific role but I'm not one of those DD players. Needless to say, I know enough to know that there is a lot about destroyers that I don't know and I know enough to say you are dramatically oversimplifying things.


Edited by DerViktim, Sep 16 2019 - 19:14.


KilljoyCutter #40885 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 19:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,679
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View Postcipher12, on Sep 16 2019 - 13:00, said:

So DDs need to scout, capture points, contest points, counter enemy DD, and hunt submarines to protect friendly BB all while trying to avoid being scouted and ravaged by dive bombers and tiny tims.

 


 Yeap.

 

Submarines are going to go 300% faster than historical "because gameplay", while DDs are going to be the only ships with ASW gear "because history".

 

DDs are going to have yet another task dumped on them (unfair and unfun for DD gameplay), while BBs and cruisers will be completely defenseless to non-surfaced subs (unfair and unfun to those playing non-DDs).

 

But pointing this out is "non-constructive" and "negative" and "off topic".


 



DerViktim #40886 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 19:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 18344 battles
  • 7,120
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Sep 16 2019 - 13:15, said:

 


 Yeap.

 

Submarines are going to go 300% faster than historical "because gameplay", while DDs are going to be the only ships with ASW gear "because history".

 

DDs are going to have yet another task dumped on them (unfair and unfun for DD gameplay), while BBs and cruisers will be completely defenseless to non-surfaced subs (unfair and unfun to those playing non-DDs).

 

But pointing this out is "non-constructive" and "negative" and "off topic".


 

 

I want to say that one of the CCs did pass along that light cruisers may also get ASW duties according to the devs. A lot is still up in the air in regards to final roles and mechanics.


In regards to sub speeds if they had IRL speeds would you enjoy playing a tier 10 ship that moves around like the tier 3 North Carolina? Seriously, that's the kind of speeds surfaced subs could maintain with their diesel motors.

 

I also wouldn't mind if DDs got nerfed when they picked up their ASW role. They are WAAAAY over-buffed as is. 



ChairmanMilo #40887 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 19:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13410 battles
  • 1,246
  • Member since:
    01-28-2012

That's grosssssss.  That's what other game forums ended up doing... and to be honest that's what they typically do here too, but not quite so dramatically.


The modern tank game even got rid of their forums altogether.  Not very progressive.  Snail game forums are a new form of cancer from what I hear.

 

I'll say it again: I didn't want to play a tank game with invisible arty, with or without one shots or stun mechanics.  I still don't.

 

When I started playing boats I didn't want to play with invisible submarines or against aircraft carriers, in either the old or new iteration.  I still don't.  I liked boats when it was new.



KilljoyCutter #40888 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 19:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,679
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostDerViktim, on Sep 16 2019 - 13:24, said:

 

I want to say that one of the CCs did pass along that light cruisers may also get ASW duties according to the devs. A lot is still up in the air in regards to final roles and mechanics.


In regards to sub speeds if they had IRL speeds would you enjoy playing a tier 10 ship that moves around like the tier 3 North Carolina? Seriously, that's the kind of speeds surfaced subs could maintain with their diesel motors.

 

I also wouldn't mind if DDs got nerfed when they picked up their ASW role. They are WAAAAY over-buffed as is.

 

 

"But they wouldn't work if you gave them historical speeds" is a red flag that they don't belong in WOWS to begin with, one of several.

 

WG has to choose between keeping them within the framework via which other ships are translated into WOWS, which makes them too slow to play -- or totally breaking that framework and making them cartoonishly fast.

 

Because subs are totally reliant on attacking while unseen, from ambush, WG has to choose between making them playable but miserable to play against because they're so stealthy -- or making them miserable to play by making them not stealthy enough.  And the "middle ground" is where they're miserable to play AND miserable to play against, there is no overlap of good gameplay.

 

And then there's the simple fact that submarines did not take part in the sorts of battles depicted in WOWS -- visual range gun-battles between surface ships.


 



Tjtod #40889 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 19:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6540 battles
  • 1,993
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013
Just from a cursory search really the only subs that would be playable with their historical speeds in the WoWS timeline would be Nautilus and Seawolf.

Apache1990 #40890 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 20:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 35603 battles
  • 6,976
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011

View PostChairmanMilo, on Sep 16 2019 - 14:31, said:

The modern tank game even got rid of their forums altogether.  Not very progressive.  Snail game forums are a new form of cancer from what I hear.

 

The modern tank game still doesn't have any players, so they don't need a forum to not discuss anything on, :­P.  You wait 10-60 minutes for low tier games, and end up getting maybe 3 other people and a bunch of bots.



Mermaid_Witch #40891 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 20:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 12855 battles
  • 13,906
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostApache1990, on Sep 16 2019 - 14:01, said:

 

The modern tank game still doesn't have any players, so they don't need a forum to not discuss anything on, :­P.  You wait 10-60 minutes for low tier games, and end up getting maybe 3 other people and a bunch of bots.


Too bad they kinda pissed that one away.  I really enjoyed it while it lasted.



ChairmanMilo #40892 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 20:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13410 battles
  • 1,246
  • Member since:
    01-28-2012

View PostApache1990, on Sep 16 2019 - 14:01, said:

 

The modern tank game still doesn't have any players, so they don't need a forum to not discuss anything on, :­P.  You wait 10-60 minutes for low tier games, and end up getting maybe 3 other people and a bunch of bots.

 

They still have great PVE, which leaves me approximately 95% less stressed than any PVP tank game.

 

I will be sad when it dies but it might have some life left in it, as it has a lot of players in Rasha.



DerViktim #40893 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 20:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 18344 battles
  • 7,120
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Sep 16 2019 - 13:35, said:

 

 

"But they wouldn't work if you gave them historical speeds" is a red flag that they don't belong in WOWS to begin with, one of several.

 

WG has to choose between keeping them within the framework via which other ships are translated into WOWS, which makes them too slow to play -- or totally breaking that framework and making them cartoonishly fast.

 

Because subs are totally reliant on attacking while unseen, from ambush, WG has to choose between making them playable but miserable to play against because they're so stealthy -- or making them miserable to play by making them not stealthy enough.  And the "middle ground" is where they're miserable to play AND miserable to play against, there is no overlap of good gameplay.

 

And then there's the simple fact that submarines did not take part in the sorts of battles depicted in WOWS -- visual range gun-battles between surface ships.


 

 

Did I say they wouldn't work with their historical speeds? I implied that they wouldn't be any FUN to play with their historical speeds. Subs would require a level of forethought that you just don't see in the average "pubby" with surface speeds of 15-18 knots and 6-8 knots while submerged.

 

I also will not make any conclusions on how subs will contribute to the game, for good of for ill, until I've actually tried them for myself. I refuse to be somebody that sets fire to the forums just because I don't like the idea of something. I may say that I have my reservations, but I'm not going to set fire to the forums over them unless I have objective play data and first hand experience to back up my position.

 

The arguments that ships didn't take part in the sorts of battles depicted in WoWS is also a poor argument. Every single game mode in the game is about as a-historical as it gets.

 

I will form my own conclusions based upon first hand experience with sub game play and mechanics. Until that time comes I'll wait and see.



KilljoyCutter #40894 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 20:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,679
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostDerViktim, on Sep 16 2019 - 14:40, said:

 

Did I say they wouldn't work with their historical speeds? I implied that they wouldn't be any FUN to play with their historical speeds. Subs would require a level of forethought that you just don't see in the average "pubby" with surface speeds of 15-18 knots and 6-8 knots while submerged.

 

I also will not make any conclusions on how subs will contribute to the game, for good of for ill, until I've actually tried them for myself. I refuse to be somebody that sets fire to the forums just because I don't like the idea of something. I may say that I have my reservations, but I'm not going to set fire to the forums over them unless I have objective play data and first hand experience to back up my position.

 

The arguments that ships didn't take part in the sorts of battles depicted in WoWS is also a poor argument. Every single game mode in the game is about as a-historical as it gets.

 

I will form my own conclusions based upon first hand experience with sub game play and mechanics. Until that time comes I'll wait and see.

 


 

I've seen enough from last years Halloween event, and the preview videos from Gamescon, and the developers own statements about subs, to know that they're every bit as bad as I worried they would be.

 

But then, it's a ship type that CANNOT be made to work in WOWS, and it's only a matter of which path to failure WG takes.


 



Mermaid_Witch #40895 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 21:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 12855 battles
  • 13,906
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

Apparently some Democrats are joining the Republicans in calling for airstrikes on Iran to punish Iran for the Houthi attacking the Saudi Arabian oil facilities.  Yeah. 

 

I have a pretty outlandish suggestion:  Why don't we let Saudi Arabia, which ISN'T a part of the US, handle its own freaking war against Iran?

 

 


Edited by Mermaid_Witch, Sep 16 2019 - 21:33.


KilljoyCutter #40896 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 22:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,679
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostMermaid_Witch, on Sep 16 2019 - 15:33, said:

Apparently some Democrats are joining the Republicans in calling for airstrikes on Iran to punish Iran for the Houthi attacking the Saudi Arabian oil facilities.  Yeah.

 

I have a pretty outlandish suggestion:  Why don't we let Saudi Arabia, which ISN'T a part of the US, handle its own freaking war against Iran?

 

 

 

Might have more to do with the threat to the oil supply than standing up for SA.

As I said bad in the day, one of the biggest reasons to push hard on post-petroleum energy sources is to strip several bad actors in the world from being able to use it to exert influence.



godofdun #40897 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 23:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 15879 battles
  • 5,967
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

"In 2018, U.S. net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum from foreign countries averaged about 2.34 million barrels per day, equal to about 11% of U.S. petroleum consumption. This was the lowest percentage since 1957."

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=32&t=6

 

...and that's net exports irrespective of how big a piece of that pie the Saudi's make up, we don't strictly speaking "need" the Saudi's oil even as it is.  That being said, their production level still effects our market so not even that effecting us would be ideal.

 

To a larger point, coddling a bad actor just shouldn't be something we do, regardless of what "stuff" they have.

 



cipher12 #40898 Posted Sep 16 2019 - 23:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 11752 battles
  • 7,437
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
Bolton must be fuming at the idea of Trump going to war with his arch enemy Persia as soon as hes forced from office.

KilljoyCutter #40899 Posted Sep 17 2019 - 01:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,679
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View Postgodofdun, on Sep 16 2019 - 17:29, said:

"In 2018, U.S. net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum from foreign countries averaged about 2.34 million barrels per day, equal to about 11% of U.S. petroleum consumption. This was the lowest percentage since 1957."

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=32&t=6

 

...and that's net exports irrespective of how big a piece of that pie the Saudi's make up, we don't strictly speaking "need" the Saudi's oil even as it is.  That being said, their production level still effects our market so not even that effecting us would be ideal.

 

To a larger point, coddling a bad actor just shouldn't be something we do, regardless of what "stuff" they have.

 

 


 

I'm not going to say you're wrong on either point, I was just griping about the situation.



godofdun #40900 Posted Sep 17 2019 - 01:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 15879 battles
  • 5,967
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Sep 16 2019 - 17:26, said:

 

I'm not going to say you're wrong on either point, I was just griping about the situation.

 

I figured, I was just reaffirming.

 

View Postcipher12, on Sep 16 2019 - 15:47, said:

Bolton must be fuming at the idea of Trump going to war with his arch enemy Persia as soon as hes forced from office.

 

He's the culprit!  He operated those drones from the secret base hidden in his mustache.






20 user(s) are reading this topic

3 members, 17 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Avalon304, Tjtod, Haunt8dTank