Fishrokk

When they first opened this forum, I was a WoT player eagerly watching the development. I came here and must have been one of the first to step on the third rail, asking "Why aren't there any submarines?". I was educated (!) - submarines were never part of surface fleet combat actions. I bought the Sims, Yubari and Gremyaschchy pack to get access to Closed Beta. I played through open release, through RTS carriers into arcade carriers. I played many special modes containing submarines. When submarines became a regular part of Random battles, I stopped playing. When submarines are removed from Random battles, I will return. I realized after posting that first bit, it contains little useful information. Submarines in game had been given capabilities which were - even in the distorted context of this game - way beyond what they would comparably be able to do in real life. Submarines could execute a killing blow that could not be effectively countered. Submarines could largely be immune to enemy reprisal. What I mean by this is, a submerged submarine can't just be fired on most of the time. An attacker needs to set up certain conditions. All of these past tense because, as I said, I don't play the game anymore.

I knew I'd posted something, I thought it was a response on one of the dev's or mod's threads... I always loved this community (with a few notable exceptions XD). Ten days later I come back and find all the challenges - reasonable nearly to the last - that I would have expected and more to my original brief post; as well as everything I would have said in response. All of it presented without obvious rancor. One response stuck out tho: Which game do I miss? That's a pertinent question. I started in closed beta, so I remember a pure surface-fleet-only version of the game. I was there for the addition of RTS CVs, and their entire lifetime in the game. On the one hand, the addition of aircraft made the game feel more real, given the ships on the water. On the other hand, I personally don't feel the RTS game-play for CVs ever really fit. If you disagree with me on that point, I acknowledge and respect your opinion on the matter; we aren't debating whether or not water is wet, both opinions are valid. I DO think WG totally missed the boat (forgive me) in just killing it, and not spinning that off into it's own carrier-centric game. It would have had a player base. I liked the arcade-style CV play better. Please note the gradient. CV game play still had MASSIVE unaddressed problems. I feel like the devs stopped short with the basic mechanics of the rework incomplete, and then started polishing the turd. In this player-versus-player arcade game, until there's a player controlled AA mechanic CV game play will continue to feel incomplete. (Past tense here, because I haven't played in months.) I enjoyed the introduction of submarines in their own special game modes. I played those game modes. Farmed the heck out of some of 'em. Those were the ones with player subs versus bots, and heavy on either a horror or sci-fi theme. When it comes to player-versus-player submarines in Randoms, the experience was just not enjoyable for me. So there it is - I miss the version just before they dropped submarines into the main game. Though I played and enjoyed all the versions before that to closed beta. If I could play Randoms in every tier without submarines, I'd still be playing. And I'd be a lot more butthurt about my free Tier 8 ship ending up being the Indomitable a few months back. If you don't miss me, you didn't have to say anything. That was just mean.

I really miss WoWs, but I am not interested in playing against magical Star Wars submarines. I find WG's original position on them was spot on; they don't belong. I WANT to come back. I loved this game.

I would add a setting to the UI that defaults all the ship info panels in Port (save the Armor profile one) to open all the time. I would add a similar setting to default all mini-map circles to 'on', and also add a control where I can set them per ship *without having to be in a game*. I would add a section where I can see and manage all my captains whether or not they are in the Reserve or currently assigned to a ship.

Voted no. Why's it all gotta be icy?

o7, LWM & Chobi. Thank you for all you've done! Happy trails, and best wishes to you both.

Alright, collab kinda makes sense. Both properties have a maritime aspect. This could be cool, new 3D skin... DEAR GOD WHAT IS THE LIZARD DOING TO THAT PAGODA MAST?!?!?!?

No - thank you for reading what I wrote, actually thinking about it and giving a constructive response, rather than just knee-jerk popping in on a new thread, and dropping a deuce.

Fair enough! I would advocate for this as better than my original suggestion.

Limiting the skills used in battle to the ship-type-skill tree is too restrictive - some ships are not exemplary of their type. For example, as another player mentioned in another thread, USS Alaska has a lot more in common with a battleship than a light cruiser. I should be able to use some of the battleship skills on my Alaska captain. Currently, every Alaska captain is limited to a set of skills that are optimized for ships that are very little like her. Putting every ship-type skill tree on every captain just quadrupled the player's job of managing commander skill profiles. 60 captains before 0.10.0 meant 60 skill profiles. After 0.10.0 - now it's 240, with the additional task of figuring out which specific four ships a player is going to train each captain for. This makes port management a much larger time sink. Going out on a limb here, I think most players would rather be playing the game than managing details in port. Suggested solution: Each commander has one set of skills. (Insert Liam Neeson reference...) The skill tree for the ship type a captain is (currently) trained on is shown as "main" or recommended branch, each of the others are shown as "not recommended". If a skill is in two branches at different point levels: If it is in the captain's main branch, that is the only place it can be selected. If it is in two "not recommended" branches, it is only available at the highest point cost. The player is allowed to fill captain skills from all four ship-type trees without additional penalty. (i.e., it doesn't cost more to pick a BB skill for a DD trained captain, BB skills aren't less effective in a cruiser, etc.) This takes it back to one captain, one ship; and allows the player to select the best skills for the specific ship that captain is trained on. It also restores intended and tested capabilities to ships that have been effectively removed by the captain skill rework.

1. Sell Reports for Doubloons. 10 Doubloons for 5 Reports. 2. Permanent camos ala Type 11 (Anshan-specific premium camo, with additional +100% FXP boost) or Type 30 (Prinz Eugen-specific premium camo, with an additional +50% base XP and +50% Commander XP boosts) that we can purchase and apply to any ship. Kinda like permanent economic flags.

When I'm looking at a ship in port I think it would be cool if, when I put my mouse cursor over a weapon (torpedoes, main artillery) in the ship stats detail panel on the left-hand side of the screen, the firing angles of each mount of that weapon was projected on the water around the ship. It should look like when a player activates their torpedoes in game, just without the aiming indicator.

Why the drawing? Why not just complete the missions and earn the ship? You guys are way too stingy with digital goods.

I had one of those last night in Donskoi - no CV in my match, and the queue was reading 20+ for all the non-CV's.

I would add, if you are enjoying a ship (and by your following posts, you are having a good time with Nagato) - even if she has weaknesses - enjoy playing out the grind. Bank the FXP, and snag an FXP ship.