Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
AdmiralQ

Flawed idea to expand playerbase

111 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

69
[T-R-F]
Members
292 posts
12,668 battles

the thing about the Subs and a bit of the CV rework is that I have seen this attempted in other games. a developer wants to expand the player base to works to make things in the game to make it so...however what they have plan will anger the current playerbase. THey ingore this issue and go through with it. The result the game bombs for they gain not much new players and drove old players away.

 

Example. Command & Conquer franchise. TIberium Twilight moved from the traditional way C&C was played in order to get new players to the franchise...resu8lt the game bombed the next game canned and after years they bring out as a mobile app to again try to get new fans at the expense of the old fans.

Expanding the player base is fine but not at the expense of the current base and that is what WG is doing. It's not a smart idea. I left WOT because of the chagnes made. I left Armoered Warfare for the same reasons.

I gave WOWS a chance because I liked ships as well as tanks and WOWS gavbe me that old WOT feel I missed....till now. I am on the edge of l;eavign and many other are....consider very carefully. are the changes you are plannign worth the loss of players on the remote chance to get more players.

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,724
Members
18,251 posts
5,220 battles

Subs will probably attract a fair number of players.

How well they get implemented is what will decide whether it's a net gain or not.

There are some who vow they will quit as soon as subs appear in their port, but I think most of the negatively inclined are going to see how it turns out.

As somebody else said, it's not the idea of subs in general that turns most people off, it's their personal conception of what subs will turn out like.

For example, those with NavyField experience have a bias against subs because they ruined that game, and they're transferring the reasons it did so onto WG's subs, even though nobody knows if they'll play the same way.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,015
[ARGSY]
Members
6,343 posts
4,264 battles

I find it interesting that you seem to have no more battles than before but are still here, making negative comments and sowing the seeds of doubt like the trickster God after whom you chose to name yourself. 

On another forum I frequent, a fellow forumite found that someone who was behaving like you are now was taking money from the opposition. I hope that's not what's happening here.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,382
[HINON]
Members
9,035 posts

I'm skeptical of subs in random battles but the CV rework has been called for and needed every since CVs were in this game. If the rework ends up with fun and balanced gameplay, WG stands to attract far more CV players than the current overly influential system.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,461
[-K-]
Members
5,295 posts
9,113 battles
5 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

There are some who vow they will quit as soon as subs appear in their port, but I think most of the negatively inclined are going to see how it turns out.

Just like how the sky was falling and world was ending when radar and RPF were first implemented.  A lot of people tend to fear change by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,250 posts
1,845 battles
8 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Subs will probably attract a fair number of players.

How well they get implemented is what will decide whether it's a net gain or not.

There are some who vow they will quit as soon as subs appear in their port, but I think most of the negatively inclined are going to see how it turns out.

As somebody else said, it's not the idea of subs in general that turns most people off, it's their personal conception of what subs will turn out like.

For example, those with NavyField experience have a bias against subs because they ruined that game, and they're transferring the reasons it did so onto WG's subs, even though nobody knows if they'll play the same way.

There are two options:

1) Submarines will fundamental conflict with the gameplay of WoWS and be resented as being wastes of time and space

2) Submarines are modified for gameplay reasons to the point they don't actually resemble in any way the feel of WWI/WWII submarines

EDIT:
NavyField chose option #2, FYI.

Edited by Helstrem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,724
Members
18,251 posts
5,220 battles
1 minute ago, Ace_04 said:

Just like how the sky was falling and world was ending when radar and RPF were first implemented.  A lot of people tend to fear change by default.

I'll admit that I'm pretty apprehensive, and not overly optimistic, but I'm certainly going to give it a whirl.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,015
[ARGSY]
Members
6,343 posts
4,264 battles
Just now, Helstrem said:

There are two options:

When confronted with two options the other side always takes a third, but I'd like to see counterplay to submarines that doesn't overload destroyers before I'm happy to see them in routine PvP. Otherwise box them up in their own PvP sandbox, the way Arms Race is now.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,724
Members
18,251 posts
5,220 battles
1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

There are two options:

1) Submarines will fundamental conflict with the gameplay of WoWS and be resented as being wastes of time and space

2) Submarines are modified for gameplay reasons to the point they don't actually resemble in any way the feel of WWI/WWII submarines

Option 2 is fine with me. I've never seen a real live sub, or played a sub sim, so I have no preconception on which to base the "feel".

As far as this type of game, They seemed ok in Steel Ocean, probably the best designed gameplay that game had lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,123
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,427 posts
9,548 battles
3 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I'll admit that I'm pretty apprehensive, and not overly optimistic, but I'm certainly going to give it a whirl.

Now this is an adult response.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,250 posts
1,845 battles
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

When confronted with two options the other side always takes a third, but I'd like to see counterplay to submarines that doesn't overload destroyers before I'm happy to see them in routine PvP. Otherwise box them up in their own PvP sandbox, the way Arms Race is now.

There literally is no third option here.

I agree with you about the destroyer problem.

Imagine this scenario, not in game but in reality:

A DD is escorting a convoy, a submarine is known to be in the area so the DD is conducting anti-submarine tactics, but it is doing so while being shelled by an enemy BB and two enemy cruisers.

Yeah, right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,250 posts
1,845 battles
1 minute ago, Skpstr said:

Option 2 is fine with me. I've never seen a real live sub, or played a sub sim, so I have no preconception on which to base the "feel".

Think stealthy, patient stalker.  Slow, but predicting enemy movements to place yourself where you need to be to get a strike, or finding yourself in the place to be to get a strike by luck.

If you are chasing down your prey, you are not playing a submarine no matter what the graphics are.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,724
Members
18,251 posts
5,220 battles
2 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Imagine this scenario, not in game but in reality:

A DD is escorting a convoy, a submarine is known to be in the area so the DD is conducting anti-submarine tactics, but it is doing so while being shelled by an enemy BB and two enemy cruisers.

Yeah, right.

In that case, the sub is irrelevant. Nothing the DD does is going to save it or the convoy from the enemy.

Besides, just replace the sub with a DD coming from the opposite direction, and you have the same problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,015
[ARGSY]
Members
6,343 posts
4,264 battles
4 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

There literally is no third option here.

I agree with you about the destroyer problem.

Imagine this scenario, not in game but in reality:

A DD is escorting a convoy, a submarine is known to be in the area so the DD is conducting anti-submarine tactics, but it is doing so while being shelled by an enemy BB and two enemy cruisers.

Yeah, right.

It's a strawman argument because there are no convoys in PvP and the destroyer isn't going to be on its own.

I also want to see exactly how real submarines will handle in game, not these souped-up monsters we're getting to play with in October. Right now,  the stealthiest destroyers in the game are far more devastating than a sub could ever be.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,724
Members
18,251 posts
5,220 battles
2 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Think stealthy, patient stalker.  Slow, but predicting enemy movements to place yourself where you need to be to get a strike, or finding yourself in the place to be to get a strike by luck.

If you are chasing down your prey, you are not playing a submarine no matter what the graphics are.

Well, to be fair, U-boats would chase down convoys surfaced at night, in order to get ahead of them and lay an ambush. A sub on the surface can easily overtake a 15-knt convoy that's zigzagging.

In WoWS, no big deal. Enemy movements are fairly predictable.

The only ships they would be "chasing down" are stationary/reversing bow campers and stationary/peek-a-booing island huggers. And that's ok, because those warships are just as guilty of unrealistic behaviour as the sub would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,250 posts
1,845 battles
14 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

It's a strawman argument because there are no convoys in PvP and the destroyer isn't going to be on its own.

I also want to see exactly how real submarines will handle in game, not these souped-up monsters we're getting to play with in October. Right now,  the stealthiest destroyers in the game are far more devastating than a sub could ever be.

You miss the point.

Anti-submarine combat was NEVER performed while under fire from enemy surface ships.  We are asking our DD players to do just that with great frequency.  Considering all the tasks DDs are currently expected to perform, this is too much additional burden on the DD players.

Edited by Helstrem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,250 posts
1,845 battles
8 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Well, to be fair, U-boats would chase down convoys surfaced at night, in order to get ahead of them and lay an ambush. A sub on the surface can easily overtake a 15-knt convoy that's zigzagging.

In WoWS, no big deal. Enemy movements are fairly predictable.

The only ships they would be "chasing down" are stationary/reversing bow campers and stationary/peek-a-booing island huggers. And that's ok, because those warships are just as guilty of unrealistic behaviour as the sub would be.

Convoys did 6-8 knots, not 15.  German U-Boats did about 16 knots on the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[RNG]
Members
276 posts
2,522 battles
4 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

There literally is no third option here.

I agree with you about the destroyer problem.

Imagine this scenario, not in game but in reality:

A DD is escorting a convoy, a submarine is known to be in the area so the DD is conducting anti-submarine tactics, but it is doing so while being shelled by an enemy BB and two enemy cruisers.

Yeah, right.

I definitely agree with this as well.

We can't overload DD's, but we shouldn't assign sub hunting to cruisers cause that would just net them even more utility, and there's no way BB's could do it.  It could be possible with CV's, but I think that would require planes that can drop depth charges or bombs that don't detonate on contact with the ocean, and I just generally don't want to rely on carriers for things like this.  It's possible things will work out with the CV rework.

For now it's just broad speculation.  However it does seem likely subs could cripple the game's meta.

As the great ship jesus once said, "cautiously optimistic."  Very cautiously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[NGA-R]
Members
29 posts
238 battles

What I find hilarious is everyone is still talking about this even after it was stated by WG that they were NOT adding subs to the main game but only doing this as a Halloween event lol.  They definitely knew what they were doing when building the hype up and getting you all so gullibly talking about it.

Edited by Royal_Seahawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69
[T-R-F]
Members
292 posts
12,668 battles
37 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I find it interesting that you seem to have no more battles than before but are still here, making negative comments and sowing the seeds of doubt like the trickster God after whom you chose to name yourself. 

On another forum I frequent, a fellow forumite found that someone who was behaving like you are now was taking money from the opposition. I hope that's not what's happening here.

because I am currently not in the mood to play the game right now because i am ticked off with both the CV rework and the Subs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,015
[ARGSY]
Members
6,343 posts
4,264 battles
7 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

You miss the point.

Anti-submarine combat was NEVER performed while under fire from enemy surface ships.  We are asking our DD players to do just that with great frequency.  Considering all the tasks DDs are currently expected to perform, this is too much additional burden on the DD players.

I am with you all the way on your concerns. And as I have already said, UNLESS they show a solution to this issue that is acceptable to the entire playerbase, I want to see subs confined to PvE or to a PvP sandbox where they don't have to be seen by anyone who doesn't want to deal with the issues.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69
[T-R-F]
Members
292 posts
12,668 battles
4 minutes ago, Royal_Seahawk said:

What I find hilarious is everyone is still talking about this even after it was stated by WG that they were NOT adding subs to the main game but only doing this as a Halloween event lol.  They definitely knew what they were doing when building the hype up and getting you all so gullibly talking about it.

because  by their own words this is simply a test bed and could get into the rest of the game  depending on things. and that is something alot of players don't want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,015
[ARGSY]
Members
6,343 posts
4,264 battles
1 minute ago, AdmiralQ said:

because I am currently not in the mood to play the game right now because i am ticked off with both the CV rework and the Subs

That sort of behaviour will get you seen as a sulking child, throwing a sulking child's tantrum. You're not helping your cause one bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,724
Members
18,251 posts
5,220 battles
10 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Convoys did 6-8 knots, not 15.  German U-Boats did about 16 knots on the surface.

Well there you go. Even easier for the U-boat to chase down a convoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,857
[NGA]
Alpha Tester
9,684 posts
3,924 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

That sort of behaviour will get you seen as a sulking child, throwing a sulking child's tantrum. You're not helping your cause one bit.

Shouldve seen the previous over-reaction topic of his. This is just round 2.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×