Jump to content

Maltz_MkII

Members
  • Content Сount

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7850
  • Clan

    [RBMK]

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Maltz_MkII

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Maltz_MkII

    DevBlog 261 - Submarine Progress: December

    100% agree. I still think they fundamentally break the natural ebb and flow of the game, but if they are here to stay they need to remain a glass cannon. High risk high reward. The numbers are probably low for three fundamental reasons: 1) Detection is one of their strengths and I think a significant portion of the player base continues to struggle with managing detection in their ships. Why? Because it requires situational awareness and it's probably the most difficult skill in the game to master. I'm still learning, and have a lot more to go. Case and point- I frequently see best-in-class detection DDs get proxy spotted by battleships. Or meander well within range of a spotted radar cruiser. In subs, they will either get sunk (rightfully so) or remain submerged (no battle impact). 2) Torpedo damage for most ships can't be effectively repaired back. It's absolute damage. So even if the numbers are lower than other classes, the effective battle damage is higher because it negates the Repair Party influence. A player can farm damage in a gunboat DD against a Conqueror and get purple damage stats, but their battle impact is actually low because it's all healed back and they've wasted all that time for no net gain. 3) There is no quantified metric for area denial, or indirect damage because you 2x pinged a battleship and forced a damage control out, then your team capitalizes with floods and fires of their own. Good players will abuse this and do filthy things, especially when divisioned up. And in response to "depth charges do too much damage" my response is this: If you end up with a DD on top of you dropping depth charges, you weren't paying attention. Go back to port. The amount of risk a CL or DD needs to take to get on top of you means that it's nearly impossible to get caught for the first half of the game, plus the unrealistic speed of the subs means that it takes FOREVER to close the distance and get in FRONT of you, because most ships drop charges off the back or sides of the ship, plus arming time. Plenty of opportunity for your friendlies to delete whatever is pursuing you.
  2. Maltz_MkII

    Superships are harmful to the game

    @Ahskance Maybe I'm oversimplifying this but here's two quick ideas: 1) +/-1 matchmaking solves this problem right away for T9. T9 still retains value by not facing superships. Plus any T5-T8 just got far more comfortable to play and let's face it, would probably encourage more players to revitalize those tiers. Put a hard cap on the # of superships in a random battle, like CVs. Or heaven forbid, make it CV OR supership (each considered a special class), not both. A trade-off many players would likely accept. 2) Relegate the overly gimmicky nature of the superships to their own game mode. Stick superships in asymmetric battles where the whole purpose is to have lop-sided matches. That way players can bomb around deleting cruisers off the map if they so please without impacting the core game modes. I'm not too worried about competitive, it's up to the tournament organizers to set the rules. No superships in clan battles, KotS, or other competitive settings.
  3. I appreciate the insight into the balancing process. I've never heard of the "player token" concept before and it's nice to get a little glimpse of the inner workings. I've enjoyed this discussion Ahskance. I'm going to stop hogging your time, but if there's one parting statement I would like to convey to the powers at be (through you) it's this: Please don't artificially boost a class just to meet internal targets. If the team thinks subs are in a good state within the game performance-wise and player feedback is generally positive, then it's ok if sub participation is a little down. I think the player base will find it's own homeostasis and balance accordingly, as long as something isn't blatantly broken. And if subs can't be made to work in randoms, that's also ok. There are still plenty of opportunities to reuse the assets in game, like inside the new convoy game mode that was tested earlier in the year. Or some very cool new operations. Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year!
  4. 1) I appreciate this, so thank you for these efforts. 2) I understand that every class plays differently, and the play style of the sub class is not my concern. Feedback from a significant portion of the folks I play with is that they are boring, but we are a small cross section. I'm a data guy so let's talk some empirical/analytical data below. 3) I'm not going to pretend that I have the problem and solution figured out, this is just a constructive discussion between a Community Manager and a player, so that I can ensure I'm not out to lunch. I have no doubt that the class has been played. I'm sure lots of data has been collected and parsed over the years. But I can't help but feel, as my industry puts it, decision makers are "not seeing the forest through the trees." The subs themselves may have data, and on paper they may seem fine, but there's more going on here. The size of the maps, the team sizes, ship comps, etc. all play roles. For example, with subs taking up the slot of a surface ship, it makes the maps feel emptier. Battle pace generally is slower. Perhaps adding a 13th boat slot just for subs when present or including a sub with the 4 DD cap in matchmaker solves this? Just one example, but I don't want to de-rail the initial conversation so if you want to engage me on this we can take this offline. My second question regarding the sub changes is this: Are the changes data driven? The dev blog states "These changes are very important as they affect different areas of interaction with submarines and bring them to balance with other ship types" Is balance as defined here battle performance or user participation? In other words, are submarines underperforming, or are they underplayed? As part of Wargaming's commitment to help explain change methodology I think this is a fair question.
  5. @Ahskance Thank you for the candid response Ahskance, to be fair I'm not sure how you would gather this data and validate that it can be interpolated to accurately represent the rest of the player base. However, what I am seeing is a trend that concerns me (my personal take, by no means am I an oracle and speak on behalf of others). To be balanced in the current state of the game, subs are inherently boring (a slow, stalker class thrust into the middle of a faster paced game happening overhead). To be "fun" for the majority of players, they need to have artificial battle impact that they probably shouldn't have... I encourage your WG peers to sit down as a team and play a couple Tier X 12v12 matches where each side has a CV, 4 DDs, and a sub, then ask your BB and CA/CL players if they had an enjoyable experience. Next, repeat this exercise where you have Tier XIII ships thrown in the mix. It just feels off and I don't think it's healthy for the long term success of the game.
  6. Question to WG: If you put out a poll, and the majority of players asked you to abandon your efforts on subs, remove them from the game, and instead focus on the other aspects of the game plus new content they actually want, would you do it?
  7. I support any rewards that encourage better play in this game.
  8. Maltz_MkII

    New Ram Mechanic

    This is a fair point. It's highly unlikely a ram will ever happen with two full HP ships simply due to the fact that they will be almost guaranteed to take damage en route to a position where a ram would ever happen in the first place. So it's entirely possible I'm missing the ticks. What I would love to see is something formal from WG showing how this mechanic works. And you are correct, I want to define it so I can use it :) Regarding saturation, there is still a portion of damage applied to the hull HP pool so even on saturated rams a significant amount of damage will still be done to both parties. After your comment, I watched a YT video of somebody testing one ship ramming a stationary ship at low speed (<5 knts) and there are damage ticks applied to both ships. Even from full HP, the ticks would kill them both relatively quickly so I'm not worried about two ships being locked together for a substantial period of time. I'm looking for a more linear curve in the DoT damage, not the parabolic curve where 4 knts is a scratch but 5 knts is almost an insta-kill. And make the angle curve more meaningful. Anyway, it sounds like this idea isn't too hot among the other players so I'll let it rest. Lower hanging fruit for the devs to work on too (shells falling short bug anyone?).
  9. Maltz_MkII

    New Ram Mechanic

    Plus, you say complicated, I say depth and flexibility. There will be a lot of players who won't get how to use the mechanic, but there are also lots of players who still don't understand the most fundamental mechanics of this game (shell types, point system, detect, etc.) This change will increase the skill ceiling which will reward players who invest the time to learn the mechanics.
  10. Maltz_MkII

    New Ram Mechanic

    Let's look at it from a different angle then. Why should a BB travelling at 5 knts instantly destroy another BB as the mechanics exist today? This would be pretty detrimental to both ships in real life sure, but they wouldn't sink right away. Damage control would likely keep both ships from sinking. Plus WoWs is an arcade not a sim. But even if it was, ships were designed with compartments to prevent critical flooding. USS Pittsburgh (CA-72) lost its entire bow in a storm and sailed back to Guam for repairs. I'm well aware that speed and distance are out of whack. That's why it will need to be balanced and tested. But as it exists today, a glancing blow that should scratch the paint is an insta-kill for both ships which is silly.
  11. Maltz_MkII

    New Ram Mechanic

    This would be a multiplication (ship tonnage x effective velocity) where the velocity is a vector (basic trigonometry). Modern CPUs wouldn't even notice this calc.
  12. Maltz_MkII

    New Ram Mechanic

    In real life or in game? Sorry just want to clarify. The math behind vectors is easy, no harder than calculating shell angle impact and it's only on a 2-D plane not a 3-D one.
  13. Hello, Curious what others think about a revamped ram mechanic. Ramming seems like a cop-out more often than not, and I would rather have it changed. What do I propose? Make ram damage a scaling damage value based on a formula of ship tonnage and velocity (not speed, velocity being a key word, which means magnitude and direction). What does this mean? A glancing blow won't detonate a ship like it does today, but will cause some damage to that ship compartment (ex. stern ram = rudder incap, turret area = turret incap, machinery spaces = engine incap) and contributes to saturation like a shell would. Torpedoes already do this and a similar AOE approach could be implemented. A perpendicular ram will cause the full damage value, as the force is 100% in the direction of the enemy ship. As the angle steepens, the damage will subside as the direction favors an angle parallel to the enemy ship and the actual force applied to the enemy ship lessens. Keep the flooding mechanic, if you steer your boat into another boat, it seems realistic that hull rupture should happen. But no full HP ship should instantly detonate because of a ram on another full HP ship of similar type. An argument could be make for 2 ships sailing at full steam in a head on collision, or a perpendicular ram to the machinery spaces or magazine, but the math/mechanics will need to be tested. This also leaves some tactical decisions to the player. If your nose is saturated, and overall the rest of the ship (hull HP pool) is healthy, you could trade nicely by ramming an unsaturated portion of an enemy ship. At least a player can't go "Oh I was outplayed in this brawl let's just steer my ship into theirs." Or my favorite, player just sails full speed ahead trying to go for the ram without even trying to use the guns. At least I could use my rudder to deflect the blow and minimize the damage. The coop bots are also bad for just trying to ram the human players. There are multiple examples of ships ramming in history and not sinking right away (see HMS Glowworm vs Admiral Hipper) with varying results. Sometimes smaller boats sink larger ones too.
  14. I think the solution is just a new Battlecruiser class. Easy enough to add another commander skill tree that combines some of the tanking skills from BB branch and DPM/AA from the cruiser branch. It's not like there's a shortage of historical and concept ships between RN, KM, USN, and IJN.
  15. I am very curious to see where this goes. I'm a huge fan of eliminating as much RNG as possible and making the outcome dependent on player skill.
×