Combined_Fleet_HQ

Thank you for the clarification; I had tried looking through past dev blogs to see the specific radius but could only find that at some point this radius was reduced. Keeping this in mind, I still find this to not be accurate enough given both submarine's speed underwater as well as the time delay between a ASW airstrike being called and the actual detonation of depth charges (8-12 seconds on avg) - more so with subs being quite agile in regards to their turning circles and rudder shift. My opinion is that the mechanic would palatable in a vacuum but when taking into account the other aforementioned aspects of submarines (above avg agility, recently increased bulkiness, etc), it handicap for submarines is too much on one side of the balance seesaw. Thank you as well for the visual aid. This method, while you can get results through multiple experiences over the course of your games, still isn't worth the "risk" considering: - The ASW cooldown - The relatively (in relation to previous patches) low damage of ASW strikes/high durability of submarines - The attack delay of ASW strikes The issue is, is it really worth taking essentially a potshot if it means leaving yourself wide open to successive submarine torpedoes - with their good speed and relatively low reload time? Some ships only have one charge of ASW strikes (and i don't remember if there are still ships that have no ASW) and being that a direct hit is not even guaranteed to chunk half a sub's HP, every strike counts. Especially with a ~40 second cooldown timer Again I don't think these systems are inherently bad, its just that the combination of factors create a gameplay interaction that is heavily in the favor of a submarine.

To preface: - Subs are here to stay. Regardless of my opinion, that's a fact and this post is trying to be constructive. - Creative liberties are taken to make submarine gameplay fun so players keep playing them. Understandable, we were never gonna get silent hunter redux. - Subs are still being tweaked and this is not their final iteration - the live server is PTS 2.0. With how long CV rework took to reach a relatively stable iteration, we can expect sub tweaking into next year. With that said, I don't understand how we arrived at the sonar wave mechanic (or whatever its actual name is) wherein a visual indicator is displayed when a submarine pings. This feature has little value to surface ships other than the direction the submarine is in. What bothers me the most is that this wave can be wildly off target - several km off in any direction (clarified to be a 1km radius). Trying to use it as a means to hone in depth charges or plane strikes is somewhat laughable and, more often than not, wastes a charge. Before the sonar wave, surface ships were able to see the sonar ping approaching their ship within a set distance. I would argue this was more informative as players could get the exact angle the ping originated from and even guestimate the distance between the surface ship and the sub based on the time delay between pings. We could even assume the heading of the submarine based on the change in the ping's angle relative to the ship. Hell, if the sub was within this ping visualization range, a surface ship could deduce that when the ping came from within the 6 or 8 km range (I don't remember what it was originally). I know the intended reason for the sonar effect not being directly on target is to give submarines room to avoid any reactionary ASW (according to dev blog 322), but with inability to tell the submarine's heading and the wave being somewhat randomized to a general radius around the submarine makes any counter more of a hail marry - even with the range reduction back in late April. This frustration is compounded by recent buffs to submarines: the HP buff makes submarines as bulky as destroyers and the removal of the increased capacity drain when spotted + capacity recharge in captain skills makes submarines a nightmare to play against. To my knowledge, even with its recent buff, ASW still isn't at the potency it was before its major nerf that reduced splash and dmg. With all this said, I don't believe submarines need another crutch to avoid damage. If that's the case: I'm under the assumption we won't revert to the previous real-time ping that preceded what we have now; so I would propose that the radius of how far the wave effect spawns from the submarine be further reduced to a degree where a depth charge launched directly on the location would, guaranteed, put the submarine within the further end of depth charge's area of effect - increasing the chance to reliable hit the submarine if no action is taken. I think asking for the effect to spawn directly on top of the submarine would be met with an outright no so I won't even bother. While we're at it, how about a system where the submarine's detect range increased in increments the more frequent he pings - allowing him to be picked up by hydro or spotted at the surface at longer ranges. For example, now pings increased detect range by 1km so 4 successive pings would mean a base detect increase of 4km. This would be the submarine's equivalent to the detection bloom of surface ships when they fire. This increase dissipates entirely after a set amount of time - whether it be the same 20 sec window as seen on surface ships or longer/shorter depends on balance. I mean, it would, in an arcade way, adapt the historical risk of running loud for a submarine This idea could completely replace what we have now or be additive. At this point, I just want subs to be consistent to play and consistent to play against.

Nerf cv's or bring back the old AA system on ships. Nuff said...

amen comrade, sister ships and paper ships are less exciting than lead ships of a class with historical loadouts and performance for what is essentially "death battle" with warships that is not to say that paper ships are bad, seeing something only existing on design or only made it as far as having their hull laid down before complications taking on the best the nations had to offer is also pretty cool in its own regard. But with the Soviet BB line, the IXs and Xs currently in ST, I want a change of pace and bring out the unnamed workhorses and backbone of the Commonwealth or show us the fleeting strength Italy possessed, that being its Navy.

Lowest common denominator is their goal I'm afraid

In regards to your disclaimer about the point not being to win in regards to this argument, you'll do have to excuse me but I like to make everything competitive; rarely do forum threads actually have back n' forth nowadays. In regards to WG citing his "flying shimakaze" as validation for change, I think they looked to it as a particular instance that perfectly reflected the issue/situation they were referring to. In that sense, did iChase have involvement in dictating change? Yes. However, I don't see that video being the nail in the coffin or the deciding factor as could be inferred when reading your posts. The power WG would give him would be promotion when he was a CC. A talented player showing off upcoming ships or future premiums to generate hype, when iChase voiced his criticism in a less than formal format (referring to the Graf Zepplin fiasco), WG was quick to cut him from the program. I understand the notion you present that once you reach a certain level of popularity or have a high degree of outreach, your opinions unconsciously carry influence - whether you intend for it or not. However, the idea that he's influencing the masses is a bit of a stretch. The largest demographic of players are the ones who never visit/frequent the forums, don't watch/subscribe to WG or other YT channels featuring content; they login, play a couple matches, then log out. What iChase and others appeal to are the players who have brand loyalty to WG and there I'd agree he can exert influence that could hold a potentially negative or positive effect on the game. However, if their opinions actually gain traction then iChase (and other CCs) at that point are mostly mirroring/echoing statements of their viewerbase. Essentially, the viewers need to be having an overall bad experience to agree with a rant or have an overall positive experience when the CC praises an aspect or addition to the game. At the end of the day, iChase and Co. don't create pushback themselves, they are simply a platform that like-minded viewers join around. So iChase's opinions are still just opinions but can be transformative when enough people back that view; but at that point, if there is a sufficient amount of people causing a ruckus, wouldn't that indicate that something is wrong? Torp spam vs Rocket/Bomb spam comes down to the execution of damage. One is a powerful alpha strike with potential D.O.T. dmg that pre flood nerf would mean an inevitable death if not treated. The other is the famous "death by a thousand paper cuts" that everyone always refers to. A Hakuryu strike package could wipe +60% HP from a Monty in one run if the CV mass drops. Bombs/rockets require multiple passes and the dmg of the rocket itself varies. In the new rework, not changing the dmg of torps to adjust for a system that allowed more manual play would be terrible. Big ship favoritism I would argue is an unintended byproduct as torps were always the the bigger threat to big ships than rockets. Though I wouldn't put it past WG to come up with a way for CVs to deal dmg that impacted big ships the least to stir less animosity. And I would say rockets/bombs are not one in the same as AP bombs are on a level closer to torps than rockets. Honestly, the metaphor is not a good one. While you can "fit" and draw parallels, the subject matter each deals with makes a comparison a slippery slope. Intent is hard to gleam through texts and given how many people on the forums state their views as if they're factual, I can only assume you would do the same. It'd appeared as if you were trying to elevate the mannerisms of iChase to criminal behavior in the attempt to invalidate any credibility he may stand on. If that's not the case, that's my bad. However, I don't see how I took it out of context. Agreed on the last part.

you read an insane man very much so, please debunk every point I made; I implore you. If its so sh*t then I'm sure you'll have no problem with obliterating my argument. I am very much looking forward to it

So ichase, a random guy who makes WoWs videos and has a moderately successful following can somehow create videos which have the impact of leading to drastic changes with the game's development? How much power do you think this one guy has? He is no different from Fara, Zoup, Notser, Aerroon, Jingles or Flamu; some of which have similar or bigger followings and some of which are more loyal to opinions of the content creators. So are we going to single out one of these CCs for their opinions when Flamu, for example, on the regular blasts this rework? And what propaganda? That he's espousing an opinion? Is he telling you that if you don't hate the rework, that you're in bed with the Devil and so if you wish to prove your innocence, join the anti-CV crowd? Please inform, what information is downright incorrect that is coming across not in a subjective format? Is he explicitly promoting an "us vs them" mentality? Is he demonizing CV players as sadists who wish nothing more than ruin this game? Does he make statements consistently that do not have gameplay to reflect what he is commentating about? Also are you seriously insinuating that his videos that either showcased the massive influence CVs had pre-rework or videos calling for a rework in some manner makes him responsible for this mess? M8, that is some hateboner stuff right there. Again, he does not have this almighty word that you say he has; and unless you can pull a video of him saying that this specific iteration of CVs is what he wanted for a rework, you're pinning the blame on the wrong person. I will repeat, you do not blame the person who makes the best use of the tools he is given, you blame the craftsman of said tools for any issues you have with them. If you're gonna tell me that he is guilty of these ridiculous court equivalents, then you have to guilty verdict a large demographic of this playerbase for having the same opinions and taking similar courses of actions. Are you gonna go to each individual and accuse them of accessory, manslaughter, and conspiracy? You literally made the distinction yourself. A Court of Law is not synonymous as a "court of opinions" (idk why you phrased it as such). Its opinions for a reason m8, its not hatespeech and its not "propaganda," he's not oppressing people's right to say what they wish nor is he discriminating a group of people. If we wish to get this ridiculous, we could argue your views and statements as slander and defamation for equating his actions to criminal offenses, labeling him as an individual on the same level as a murderer with a malicious agenda. What iChase, Flamu, me, or anyone else who makes their criticism of the rework known, what we want is balance (as close to it as possible) and a good game. But when we're promised a solution to an issue (which was delayed mind you) and this is the fix; what are to assume if the intended fix produced its own slew of problems? It tells us that they can't fix this issue and so it would be better to remove the source of the issue altogether rather than try to salvage it. The fact that it's been 5 months already and not only can we still not get it right, but also that WG doesnt seem to mind promoting the sale of premium CVs - ships that are not finalized - or continue developing other lines only serves to make us more frustrated and prolong this issue. We are talking about a quarter of the game not being in a satisfactory state which also affects the enjoyment and existence of the other 3 types of ships. That should be a priority that outranks other developmental goals but with the execution and communication of this rework, it seems like its just a nuisance to WG. The issues this rework were supposed to fix either were only exacerbated or improved to an degree that does not correlate to the scale of this rework, leading people to wonder: what was the point of all this?

For real, they take this specific instance of someone not being professional and essentially crucify him as if that's how he acts 100% of the time. He's no longer a CC and so can afford to be more human but since its the mighty iChase, being unprofessional on the rare occasion is grounds for invalidity. And I mean, despite the less than formal presentation of his argument, its still coherent enough to get the point across but some individuals are so stuck on the presentation that they don't even break down the argument itself. And when they do, they either refute his claims on the notion that he was formerly one of the CV mains that wreaked havoc in randoms when he played so he has no leg to stand on (which is a terrible argument) or claim that CVs were majorly broken before and we should be thankful that its only moderately broken now (even though I think that's incorrect). The people who call it "karma" are missing the point entirely. The people saying it was worse previously, I say you're exaggerating. The counter play to CVs (i.e. Def AA, AA specs, other CVs) actually made a notable impact on Air to Surface engagements. You countered RNG with RNG, using consumables, skills, and flags to give you better RNG. Now you're countering manual play (referring to the CV's ability to manually fly their planes) with RNG, that's not an equal playing field nor is it effective. And, I still can't believe people make this point, the people who say life's unfair so deal with it; really? I'm all for improving and reworking the game to prolong its longevity and success but this rework is not accomplishing its intended goals to a significant degree and I'm getting tired of playing Public Test 2.0. The more this drags on, the less I'm for trying to make CVs work. If this is how the rework is, what's the point in even trying? Even with the "live" data that they need, we're still stuck on this seesaw of balance.

Oh please, on top of being a BB, the guy had an MK and a DoY near him; the MK enough was overkill. The lexington would never have been able to make that frequently and with sufficient planes. Old Graf Zepplin maybe and old shoukaku for sure but the squad would've been in a severely dmg'd state. The CV's skill was indeed meh as he wasn't using sling-shot maneuvers and his aim was so-so; but it lends more credit if an average player was such a nuisance and successful enough to be so I hope we're not insinuating that by him being top tier in skill, that his word is no longer credible simply because he used a ship type that caused grievance due to WG's inability to balance sufficiently and quickly enough. I'm not gonna blame a person for making the absolute best of the tools he's given, I'm gonna blame the craftsman who made those tools. I'd rather listen to the grievances of an upper echelon than a newer player or one who's gameplay is avg at best. Less room for their issues to be a result of lack of knowledge and skill surrounding the game. It's an elitist view but I stand by it. I would look to newer players when regarding issues of accessibility or learning curves; find out what's hindering them and what could be improve to hasten their skill growth. But balance? No I prefer taking feedback from slightly above average to super unicum. And I mean really? If I absolutely dominate DDs in CAs/CLs, does that mean I lose the ability to complain about cruisers because I "ruined" DD games in Cruisers? No. If anything, I have more clout to discuss with because I know how these tools work and the best possible way to minimize efforts and maximize efficiency.

You're right about not always being able to shine regardless of the match, however what unique strength does the Bismarck bring to the table that can be a significant contribution when it is bottom tier? -Guns? No, only eight of them with terrible dispersion and they're 15 in. so they'll have a tougher time penetrating and doing meaningful damage to higher tiers BBs and even X cruisers such as DM, Salem, Hindy, Henri, etc. Amagi and the plethora of USN BBs are better picks. Yes it has better reload but given the other detriments, it doesn't even out. No point in talking HE. - AA? No. Germans pre-rework were know for fantastic long range AA but middling short-mid range. AA post rework still doesnt make sense to me but USN always offered better overall performance across all ranges. Vanguard is also in the running due to its powerful mid-range complement of primarily boffors. - Concealment? No. USN & UK beat it outright - Speed? Eh, Amagi, Richie, Vanguard can compete with it. Idk what Gascogne was speedwise - Secondaries? Its a sniping meta so meh already but the Massachusetts offers good secondaries while also have other benefits and can compete in the sniping meta better comparatively speaking. idk about Gascogne. - Armor? Trades off citadels for full AP pens; when not every ship had an underwater citadel, yes this was workable but now most ships have waterline citadels but do not take full AP pens as bad as the bis and other KM BBs do - nor as often - while also retaining other benefits that the KM do not have. Plus it can't bow tank due to limited guns up front and other ships can kite relatively better. Plus that armor makes it easier for AP bombs so meh. -Hydro? Yes and no, its not the hydro that the Freddie, Kurfurst, or the Z-52 gets access to; its cruiser hydro and you may argue that allows the bismarck to get aggressive but with the aforementions cons in conjunction with its meh TPS and the sniper meta, it often uses it defensively like when its in the middle of a fleet or behind the friendly DDs/CAs; at that point, it doesnt matter. And it's no radar So, I ask again, what does the Bismarck bring to the table when bottom tier that is not only unique or tied specifically to this ship but can also radically change how an enemy must deal with them in order to overcome this ship? Even if this ship enters the "fight" in the mid-late game, it still lacks enough meaningful traits/characteristics to make it a game changer. At the end of the day, the Bismarck is in the same situation as the Prinz and Hipper were in awhile back in which the meta and powercreep has reduced this ship to being another port queen. Many are to quick to say that a buff for the Bismarck would be detrimental to VIs when the Bis is top tier, but these VIII CAs were able to get buffs (one a heal, the other a RoF buff in addition to a bow armor buff if that was not retracted on top of the HE penetration) and the overall balance was not disturbed. Additionally, the introduction of other ships such as the Alaska and other Super Cruisers, Harugumo/KItakaze, Daring, PA DDs with DWTs, and potentially the Soviet BBs, have given the Bismarck increased competition that has advantages over the Bismarck and yet the Bismarck lacks either: -the means to deal with these new threats or -the means that it has is not enough to fight these ships who break the mold. Of course, you may counter that it should not have advantages over higher tier ships but the point of this discussion to highlight that almost, if not all, VIII BB contemporaries perform better or can at least handle themselves better when bottom tier. It also goes without saying that the proliferation of CVs since the rework has a detrimental effect on the viability of the Bismarck. What the Bismarck faces today is vastly more challenging than what the Tirpitz faced at its launch back in the first months after the game exited OBT. In this meta, I don't blame them. Best ships are ships that have either the ability to snipe or kite away and don't have to be aggressive to be a threat, or can disengage at any time due to concealment.

Have you ever tried or have Hearts Of Iron? Its one of those series I always return to with friends Is U-Boat in early access now or did you get a code for backing it? Looked really interesting and wanted to try it

Well actually you can blame CVs for making a "stupid player base" even dumber Also: M8 that is a poor argument. STs complained about the rushed feeling with the rework, didnt stop WG from launching it; STs complained about the last minute changes of the KM DDs, didnt stop WG from pushing it through. STs complained about how ridiculous RN BBs were, didnt stop. Azuma got hit too hard with nerf bat, didn't stop. etc. On another note, hindsight is 20/20. Nobody at the onset of the CBT thought CVs would be in such a state that was detrimental to the overall meta and retention of the game. There was nothing to go off of on whether WG could or could not make CVs work. There will be people who argue against the inclusion of CVs due to the notion of "CVs made surface ships obsolete blah blah blah" but those are mainly fringe arguments; most of what I've seen and heard from clanmates and others is that this rework further exacerbated the stigma of CVs being too powerful since now they've become damage farmers with somehow even greater damage potential than previously believed. Now people are just fatigued and if this, a rework, didn't work to what it set out to do, then just scrap the idea.

eyy, going into that match I was just told that the Vanguard was terrible. Couldn't kill secure myself a kraken but did end up with 197k dmg in the bank. good effort on your flank. all too often you win one side only to realize you've lost the other; or worse, you get stalled whiled the other side is destroyed leading to a hammer & anvil. gg m8

There's two issues with using Steam Charts as a gauge: -The furthest I was able to view population numbers was 5 years after the game came out which by that point, its sequel was already out as well - as for the pop numbers of its sequel, defer to my point below -(You've mentioned this already)Steam was not the main platform/medium (platforim = console or pc, medium = Steam, Epic Store, or Origin) that the game was bought and played through (similar to WoWs case) and so we can't view the population numbers as indicative of the game's success - 2007 was still the time when physical sales trumped digital by a ~79%/21% split. What makes this important was that if you bought a physical copy, the game was not launched through steam but rather the Windows Live launcher. If we could pull numbers from that, we'd have more conclusive data Ask people who've played WoWs if they've heard of the Battlestations series, from most of my interactions (anecdotal evidence so take it as you will), many have said yes. This series was mostly a console game and was loved by many.