Tank_Grrl

VIII Atomic Rage (barracuda) in a Savage Battle: Just a happy flex post! I'm not a great player, so this was a lot of fun. As the ring of fire tightened, I was supporting my team by grabbing consumables (actually earned the Plunderer achievement!) and firing a few denial of area torpedoes (one actually hit, haha!). I was mostly using my main guns when an enemy got too close. I even destroyed one... Eventually I heard the chilling "You are your teams last hope!" There was one other enemy left. I always panic in these situations, but I was at full health with lots of heals and they were almost dead. We circled each other in the tiny ring of flames. I sensed they were more panicked than me. I swung wide beyond the flames and fired my guns one last time. They hit, the game ended and I even got the Warm Greeting achievement (kill someone while in the Wild Fire)! I didn't particularly inflict tons of damage or do an amazing job, but it was a great feeling to help my team, be the sole survivor (aka last man standing) and get that final kill - a first for me in PvP. 20220327_153919_PXSD015-Grozovoy-PA_e08_PostApocalypse.wowsreplay

Nothing says you can't bring an old dog to a new fight.

Ah, thanks. I just looked up the Die Hard achievement and was going to ask if you had any signals, etc. Thanks for posting that!

Did you fire your torpedoes at point blank from above? Or did you ram him?

Yes, especially when you consider Star Wars was set a long, long time ago, likely before the relatively futuristic Vikings. WoWs is not a warship simulator. They may strive for accurate ship models sometimes, but the list of unrealistic game mechanics in WoWs is a mile long... as they are in almost every game. Even "games" that try to replicate reality as closely as possible (Microsoft Flight Simulator, Eleven Table Tennis, etc.) have to bend certain rules. That's the nature of games.

You're not bad and you're not wrong. Video games are rarely perfect simulations. You encountered something very unexpected and non-realistic. But now that you know it, you can adjust your gameplay in the future. WoWs is filled with unintuitive, unrealistic game mechanics. I mean when Mario falls multiple stories, bounces off a turtle, and walks away unscathed thousands of times? Preposterous!

You kind of confirmed my point. It pretty much makes your "neutral poll" impossible to parse when you write the questions from just one side ("surface ship perspective") of an issue, even if done unintentionally. This was an assumption that you made that all responders didn't share. It's hard to write unbiased polls. Now you can't extract the number of [sub lovers that want some changes to subs] from [sub haters]. As I said... too arbitrary.

Regarding team spotting and homing torps from depth: 1. I thought I read in some WG post that team spotted enemies only appear to a submerged sub within a limited range (i.e. you don't get the same view of all the enemies that your teammates might get). Has that changed based on what you've seen in your current testing? 2. Also, do different subs have different maximum running depths that might affect the range at which homing torps can be sent?

Look forward to it! Are you saying compared to 0.11.2 PTS round 3 subs are nerf'd even more?

🍼

Many of these questions are too arbitrary: Q1 could be answered negatively by people that love subs but think the current iteration is too weak or too slow or too nerf'd or whatever... AND could be answered negatively by people that hate subs. Q7 could be answered negatively by people that love subs that feel spotting is terrible, subs are blind, have limited spotting abilities or depth control is too slow and restrictive AND could be answered negatively by people that hate subs. Q8 could be answered negatively by people that love subs that feel they are sitting ducks, easily killed, easily detected or easily spotted or cannot fire any weapon from stealth AND could be answered negatively by people that hate subs. Q9 doesn't make much sense. The logical alternative is to test subs privately without public input. The large negative result gives the (I assume wrong) impression this is what's desired by most. Q10 again could be answered negatively by people that love subs that feel the ping mechanic is too restrictive, too short, too location revealing, too easily negated, too whatever AND could be answered negatively by people that hate subs.

I was looking at the new Superships and the UK Eagle and US United States have the planes on deck clipping into each other. I did a quick check of all other carriers in the game and didn't notice anything quite this bad on the flight deck. Usually the art department is top dog, but this is embarrassing.

Very interesting! I like this idea. Creating good game mechanics is the hardest part of creating a good game.

Just a guess, but isn't there a thing about shells hitting ships below the waterline giving less damage. I thought I saw this somewhere and it's been standard in WoWs for years. Could you have hit the sub(s) below the waterline maybe? And aren't there a dozen factors when calculating damage? (location, armor thickness, penetration, captain defense and offense skills, upgrades, signals, etc.)?